EUEEPETTETEEC RTT EGER ER EEEEERE 





- 
hy 


- 
~ 


~*) - 5 


- 
+ 


k 

* 
: ; 

: 

im | 


st-49 Scape 


oa | 











PeCONTRIBUTION LO BIBLICAL 
PEGG OU RaAVEELY: 


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
NEw YorK CIty 


SALES AGENTS 
HUMPHREY MILFORD 


AMEN CORNER, E.C. 
LONDON 


EDWARD EVANS « SONS, L7p. 
30 NortTH SZECHUEN ROAD 
SHANGHAI 





CONTRIBUTIONS TO ORIENTAL HISTORY AND PHILOLOGY 
No. 10 


A CONTRIBUTION 


ah, 


BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


ang 


ISRAEL EITAN. L. és S.. Ph.D. 





New York 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
1924 


All rights reserved 


To .. = i 
. . a. 
*heue 
: 
zo 4 
* 
. 
i 
i 
t 
: 
’ 
~ 
i] 
‘ 


. 4 
¢ if ; hh 
> 
TA ie 


- By COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 


Printed from type. Published May, 1924 


¢ 


i, 7 P i“ We” 
4 Py 
. be : ‘ 
7 - ' P 
r / : ' ’ <r el ; 
i, 1% * Odes, 4 Al Bet ie 
' > 0 a 
. re 
i ayy 
ts 
_ 
af ‘ 
= 


Copyricut, 1924 


7 
- J 
7 , 
' : 2g 
a °@ ~ 
z ws 
P ] ® a > 
£ 7 a a . 
i ac bed? 
s wg n 
. el Fk 
5 a 
A — - ha vy 


: cat 
TAL “a4 He: - 


* 5 as ws 


t 
e 


* 
<P 
ee. 
é 


UJ 
? 


“eee 
= 


of. 





IHG) RGR Gish D) (CTOMPUM BREA HES Tein De 


Professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures, 
Columbia University 





NOTE 

In the following studies, which I recommend cordially to my 
fellow Semitologists and students of the Bible, Dr. Eitan has endeavored 
to explain some difficult passages in the text of the Old Testament upon 
a double basis. The first is the inherent probability of a root’s meaning 
from its connection in the text; the second is the derivation of such a 
meaning from a comparison with similar roots in sister dialects. These 
theories are not new; but their application in the cases treated is. 
Anything that aids us in staying the hand of the blind destroyer of 
our text called ‘““The emendator’’, and that appeals to our sense of 
exegetic propriety and philologic exactness, must be welcome. I 
am certain that the readers of Dr. Eitan’s book will pardon an unusual 
turn of English phrase here and there, if they will remember that whilst 
writing in English, he is thinking in three or four different languages. 

RICHARD GOTTHEIL 
February 27th, 1924. 





CONTENTS 


Introduction .. a ae 
Etymological Studies......... 
Hebrew Index........ 
Biblical indexa, e122. 


4 OL 7 





A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


INTRODUCTION 


I. The ‘‘Etymological Studies’’ following after these 
preliminary considerations are intended to illustrate by 
concrete examples the incompleteness of our Biblical lex- 
ica and at the same time to propose some supplementary 
material to them. 

The fact of our being but partially acquainted with 
the ancient Hebrew vocabulary might with sufficient se- 
curity be inferred merely from the small size of the Bible. 
The Holy Scriptures could evidently include documents 
of a religious or moral character only or almost so. As 
to ancient or more recent profane literature, the pious 
editors contented themselves occasionally with granting ad- 
mission to needed excerpts or whole compositions able 
to undergo easily a monotheistic redaction or at least such 
an interpretation. Sometimes even the compiler refers ex- 
plicitly to the first sources of which he availed himself 
and where more information may be gotten. Compare 
for instance: 


(1) The wm 5d Jos. 10.13; II Sam. 1.18; 


(2) The 'A monyn raDD Num. 21.14., possibly an epi- 
cal collection; 


(3) The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel mentioned a 
Sreqtemany times: (1. Ku. 14.19 +.15131- 16.514, 20;27; 22. 
Gree tine 1603 L034 90505, ste el ool 5. 15.1112015,°-21; 
26, 31) and their parallel, 


(4) The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah pointed to 
emicetial Lime 420 -a lot) ote A0et Ll eKie 8.23% 12,20; 


eee U0 LO O20 20s ele 2825.20) 24.9) =DOtn 
1 


2 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


appearing clearly enough to have been extensive and 
detailed annals out of which the Biblical author of the 
First and Second books of Kings drew his short notices 
essential and sufficient according to his monotheistic pur- 
poses, while he contented himself for further particulars 
with referring the reader to the original; 


(5) The Book of the Acts of Solomon I Wi. 11. 41; 


(6) The Commentary of the prophet Iddo If Chr. 13.22 
(comp. 12.15, and 9.29); 


(7) The Commentary of the Book of the Kings II Chr. 
24.27, and other written documents (II Chr. 12.15; 9.29). 


All these books are lost and a similar fate overtook 
certainly a still larger number of literary products during 
the period of the Second Temple, chiefly the latter half of 
it. The warning of Qoh. 12.12 against ‘‘making many books’”’ 
is a transparent hint at the contemporary productiveness 
in this respect. A good deal of these compositions have 
undoubtedly been originally written in Hebrew, as for 
instance Ben Sira and I Maccabees. By reason, however, 
of their conspicuous recentness or unfitting contents, they 
were not qualified to figure in the Jewish Canon and could 
be saved from oblivion by the Oriental churches in various 


translations only, in Greek, Ethiopic, Syriac, etc. 


Il. The original! of Ben Sira, recovered in its largest 
part, though containing an important number of words 
and expressions not occurring in the Bible, can give but 
a slight idea of the significance of such texts, especially 
of the earlier ones, for Hebrew lexicography. If, however, 
the Mishnaic and neo-Hebraic character of Ben Sira’s 
language has been amply insisted upon. it is just also to 

1 See ISRAEL Levi: I‘ Ecclesiastique, Paris, ed. Leroux, 2 vol., 1898, 1901; 
COWLEY AND NEUBAUER: Ecclesiasticus, Oxford 1897, Clarendon Press; 


SCHECHTER AND TAYLOR: The Wisdom of Ben-Sira, Cambrigde 1899; 
Rup. SMEND: Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, Berlin 1906, 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 3 


point out there several new elements which are certainly 

probably of ancient Hebrew origin. As such may be 
considered, for instance: mvs? (alias Mw) reservoir ob- 
viously identical with the mws of the Mesa inscription 


ak 


(11.9 and 23); pnwns to rise and shine (comp. Ar. yal se 
1x71 to observe stealthily (comp. Ar. ey); min to bestow gifts, 
present (comp. am and Ar. is). Even 2» apn ° to attack 


can not be considered as an artificially forged verb, having 
just the opposite meaning of the Mishnaic 9°ap7 (mostly 
with 05) to welcome, greet, receive. In Ben Sira it reminds 


one rather of Assyrian gablu fight and mugqtablu warrior. 


Just so, there is no doubt that many words first 
appearing in the Mishna belong to the old Hebrew stock, 
though they do not chance to occur in the Bible. The 
bare presence of the &maé NeyOueva, or vocables saved 
from oblivion through the good luck of being mentioned 
in a single instance, is a sufficient hint at a far larger num- 
ber of words entirely lost. The same idea is suggested 
by epigraphy, when Hebrew, Moabite or Phenician in- 
scriptions first revealed unkown terms. Thus we find, 
for instance, in the Siloam? inscription 7ap) tunnel from 


2 Ben-Sira 50,3: 12192 (OD =) DI MX, Mpd 712) 73 Wwe. 
3 Idem 50,7: 205 2" PR NP WH WNW). 


4 Idem 14,22: TEV MND 73) APN TANS mxx> This verb occurs also once 
in Aramaic. See Levy’s NHWB. 


5 Idem 12,3: AWY N? MPT ON YOU MID? Ww Ps: 

- 

6 This is also one of the meanings attached to Arab. fog It would seem 
rather unlikely to view some of these isolated Hebrew words as direct loans from Arabic 
though this was then spoken by the Nabataeans. For the only Semitic language that 
could pretend to such a literary influence was Aramaic, at that period paramount in 
Western Asia and in which the Nabataean inscriptions themselves are written. The 
possibility, however, of some direct Arabic influence on the Hebrew vocabulary (for 
instance, in Job) through the channel of the Nabataean tribes constitutes an important 
problem for Bibtical lexicography. 


7 See, for instance, COOKE: WNorth-Semitic Inscriplions, Oxford 1903, p. 15, 
lines 1 and 3, 


4 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


the well known root ap) to pierce, but also AT (probably 


fissure) of enigmatic etymology. 


III. The small number of Biblical roots, which has 
been estimated at about 5008, is due simply to the paucity 
of this sacred literature and can in no wise be supposed 
to comprise the entire vocabulary of ancient Hebrew, es- 
pecially not as a spoken language. This becomes quite 
natural if we take in account two facts of historical character 
which can no more be questioned. Inthe first place, Biblical 
Hebrew is the literary representative of an ancient language 
more or less wide-spread in western Asia, at least for 
certain periods, anyway extending far beyond the narrow 
boundaries of Palestine proper, no matter under what 
various names—Hebrew, Canaanaitic, Amoritic, Moabitic 
or Edomitic.® Secondly, the antiquity of the Hebrew 
language must be far higher than it is mostly assumed. 
Not only the Tell-el-Amarna letters show by Canaanaitic! 
glosses and morphological!! influence the prevalence of 
this language as vernacular in western Asia at the beginn- 
ing of the XVth century B. C. and consequencly much 
earlier. But a piece of Biblical poetry like the Debora 
Song (Ju. 5), for instance, dated not later than the XIIth 
century, B. C., by its fine prosody gives us reason to surmise 


a previous literary tradition of long duration. 


IV. Fortunately, all chances are not lost for us to 
get better acquainted with the ancient Hebrew vocabuiary. 
Hebrew lexicography may still achieve many new conquests. 
First, philological investigation is required by the num- 
erous proper names of unknown origin. But, as the ety- 


8 W. H. Green: General Introduction to the Old Testament, New York 1899; see 
vol. on The Text, p. 30. 

® We could add Phoenician, for in the main it is only a dialect of Hebrew. 

10 Charles Bezold: Oriental Diplomacy, London, Luzac Co., 1893; espec. p. 119. 

11 The French scholar Dhorme has tried in his La Langue de Canaan (Rev. bib- 


lique, 1913, t.X., pp. 369-394) to restore even the grammar of this pre-Biblical Hebrew. 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 5 


mology of such names has rarely any connection with the 
context and, if at all, is explicable only through cognate 
languages, no very important results can be expected from 
this side. 

A second kind of lexicographical research is concerned 
with detecting the primitive and original meaning, mostly 
concrete, of roots which otherwise are well known. Here 
far surer results may be obtained. For such studies are 
not reduced to the help of cognate languages only. They 
are able to avail themselves of the context also where, 
sometimes, the word occurs exceptionally in its archaic 
and etymological sense, especially in poetry. Thus, for 
instance, in Prov. 13.9 the familiar verb now to rejoice 
seems rather to betray its original and concrete meaning 
preserved by Arabic os to be high. 73) now? op'T¥ WS 
7y7 o'ywn means exactly: “The light (=flame) of the 
righteous shall vzse (or be high), but the candle of the wicked 
shall be put out.’’ Even, if words nowhere occur in their 
etymological sense, this may often be disclosed through 
the comparison of their usual secondary or figurative mean- 
ing with the respective roots in the kindred languages, 
as shown in the following ‘“‘ Etymological Studies”’ for 77377 


to subdue connected with Ar. > back. Perhaps we could 


likewise find in Hebrew }17 to murmur, slander a secondary 
meaning of Eth. #72 (nagara) to speak, talk. For the 
regular metathesis of all the three radicals compare Heb. 
on to have compassion and Ech. @mhé@ (mahara). This 
process of derivation, which consists merely in specializ- 
ing the general meaning to speak, talk by attaching to it 
an unfavorable shade, finds a good parallel in Assyrian ‘? 
dababu to speak meaning also to intrigue, complain and 
connected with Heb. 729 whispering, defamation, evil report. 


12 For the exact meanings of this verb see references in Muss-Arnolt’s Concise 
Dictionary of the Assyrian Language, Berlin 1909, pp. 237-8. I do not mention the 
Heb. verb 337, because its etymology is still uncertain. 


6 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


V. The third and most important task incumbent 
upon Hebrew lexicography is fruitful and involves great re- 
sponsibility. It aims at discovering the genuine meaning of 
words and phrases which so far have remained unexplained 
or misunderstood. Indeed, too many passages in the Bible 
still withhold from us the secret of their real contents. 
This phenomenon is very often, if not always, considered 
as a result of the corruptness of the Massoretic text con- 
taining, in accordance with the same assumption, all the 
errors of copyists which could creep into the sacred manu- 
scripts during previous centuries. 

If, however, there is a part of truth in this argument, 
it includes certainly a good deal of exaggeration. The 
effect of the latter has been naturally to incite emendation 
of the text as soon as it seems unintelligible. Now, as a 
matter of fact, many of those would-be corrupt passages 
for which various corrections have been proposed can be 
most suitably explained in the way of purely “ philological 
exegesis’, thus revealing new linguisitical elements so far 
not identified, as shown below in the Etymological Studies 
of 1, 1, won, 1m, pn, mwy, etc. 


VI. It would, therefore, not be superfluous on this 
occasion to insist upon two tendencies in contemporary 
exegesis, both of them conspiring to hinder the possible 
advance of Hebrew lexicography and correct understanding 
of the Biblical text. The one and most disastrous, from 
our point of view, is an active inclination to a special kind 
of wholesale emendation resting upon a quite erroneous 
principle. The latter consists in superseding an entire 
Hebrew word or phrase by another one, at one’s choice, 
in order to fit the meaning given by one of the ancient 
versions, chiefly the LX. X, that seems to differ from the MT. 
Now, just in such cases of apparent variance between the 
MT and the Septuagint, we have logically the best occasoin 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 7 


of detecting ancient vocables of an etymology so far un- 
surmised because of their deceiving graphical form. Emen- 
dation is then equivalent to the suppression of many of 
the best instances capable of furthering our acquaintance 
with the Hebrew vocabulary of old. The absurdity of 
such a method is striking in an example like °11 (Zp. 2.14), 
emended into p18 or 77¥ according to the LXX or Targum, 
while the authenticity of this Massoretic vocable may 
be proved by Arabic where it is preserved in the required 
meaning. So that, whatever we might think of other 
ways of adjusting! the Massoretic text, excepting cases 
of wrong separation of words which is often quite! con- 


spicuous, this one is erroneous from its very beginning. 


VII. The other obstacle on the road of lexicographi- 
cal progress is not an active tendency but rather a passive 
and unconscious one. Even most liberal exegetes and Bibli- 
cal philologists, owing probably to passive resistance, 
still too often yield to traditional explanations and ety- 
mologies based on mere graphical resemblance or on 


13 DeLitzscH: Die Lese-und Schreibefehler im Alten Testament, Berlin 1920, passim. 
14 For instance, Mi. 7,4 73100079 WW’ = 7D)10D ow, Job 38,12 AAW ANY = INA NYT, 
Nu. 23,10 "DODiI= 15D 9) etc. Compare below, in the root study "&, Job. 31,23 °D 
2 pe Sy tmp 2=5x TRON IND. In the same way, I propose for Hos. 5,7 ANY 
ompon NS WIN O75" to read....WIM) 2DN my. The word WIM) may possibly mean 
here tnvader or conqueror, if we taxe into consideration the following shades of meaning 
attached to the Ar. verb oe to hasten (the walk), go at Asse throw down, tread 
under foot, vanquishin wrestling. Comparealso age or UM pes prostrated. This 
w=Im) would then be an isolated remainder of a root WIN akin to Ar, Hm and different 
from walks which is the Ar. counterpart to the usual Hebrew root of WIN new, wan 
month ete. 
For Proy. 25,27 N33 0735 IpM it might also be preferable to read 13229 ape 7PM 
«And he who despiseth giory is honoured.’’ Compate Ar dis to despise, think slightly 


of and Prov. 28.11 pM aD bm YY WN YI ODN which would mean: ‘‘The rich 
man is wise in his own conceit (=in his eyes); but the poor that has understanding 


thinks slightly of him.” 


8 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRA PHY 


Aramaic influence and involving evident infringement of 


’ 


parallelism or exaggeratedly “‘figurative’’ meanings. A 


few short examples wil] suffice in this place. 


VIII. In Is. 41.10,23 ynwn and aypyy are generally 
derived from the verb nyw to gaze. The first verse, how- 
ever, shows clearly that we have to deal here with a synonym 
of xv to fear: Pnbsx 1RK->D ynwn-bx uN Joy-D NVn-OK 
“Fear not for I am with thee: be not dismayed for I am 
thy God.” So the authorized English version gives the 
true meaning which both suits parallelism and corresponds 
with Pesh. .20522 flo (an7NnN 891) “and be not afraid.” 
Now, as Ar. 75 ae means just to be sad and agitated, it 
seems most natural to find in our verse as the Hebrew 
counterpart of it the root ynw to be afraid, so far mentioned 
in no Biblical!® lexicon. This will likewise fit the other 
passage: Mm xn qYAYN, Where we have to vocalize 8), 
meeting again the two synonymous verbs of the first - 
mentioned verse. Moreover, the root ynw is here clearly 
proved by the penulttma accent and the games preceding 
the precative (or cohortative) 7 in the first verb; for 
myw with radical 7 (=*) would have given 7Aynypy. 


IX. In Zech. 1.15 Ay 9 IWIy ADM LYyD NYP IN, every- 
body seems so far to be satisfied with the usual rendering: 
“T was but a little displeased and they helped (forward) 
the affliction.”’ 
point of view, the customary verb “1y to help would be 


Nevertheless, from a careful philological 


surprising in this place where it is expected to play the 


part of an antithesis to vyno little and of a synonym of 


15 See Kasimirsky, p. 1190, and Wahrmund; comp. also the root Cx Kasim. 
Doe LoU, 


16 This root, however, with its meaning to fear for Is. 41,10, without further 
proofs, has first been mentioned in the small modern-Hebrew dictionary 3) 17> by 


Yellin and Grasovsky, Jerusalem. 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 9 


ma17 to multiply, increase. In no other instance it has 
the meaning of the periphrasis ‘‘to help forward’’. If, 


however, we try to surmise a special so far unknown He- 
oh ee 


brew verb, it will at once appear identical with Ar. »x* 


to be copious,'* abundant (1V yl to multiply). So mon 


ay > ity would mean ‘they were copious in the affliction.’ 


Possibly also the correctseparation of the words ought 
to be ayn siya on (comp. el) they multiplied the af- 


fliction. 


X. With regard to. Job 4.10 o2~1 Snw Sip) AAS MINw 
ni 0755, Duhm states confidently: yni's is Aramaic for 
Hebrew yn. This is the most current assumption, while 
some suppose a textual error for )1¥n). The supposed mean- 
ing of yn) in both cases seems to rely upon the Peshitta 
rendering p52) (mann) are broken. A slight examina- 
tion, however, may suffice to prove that this etymology is 
unfounded. Indeed, yn) does not even exist in Aramaic 
and in Syriac'® it has a meaning far away from the pro- 
posed one. On the other hand, it is of no use to conjecture 
a textual error for 1x¥m). The whole verse with its two 
conjunctive waws seems rather to represent a_ single 
sentence having exceptionally given up parallelism; so 
that the final verb must suit all three subjects, something 
which is not realized in the case of i¥m. It is further 
unsatisfactory to consider the first hemistich as a sentence 
apart with omission of its special verb. Such an ellipsis 
is without example, for parallelism allows only the dropping 
out in one hemistich of a term mentioned in the other. 


17 The Syriac root (WY) ‘azar with the essential meaning of entangling would 
hardly be related here to the Arabic one. 

18 See Das Buch Hiob, p. 27, in Marti’s Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament. 

19 Possibly Syr.“\.42.3 (YN3) to outweigh, evceed in weight, would suit Ben-Sira 3,14: 
YNIN NA NON W9N) AMSN &? IX NpI¥ ** Bounty towards (thy) father shall not be wiped 
out and it shall outweigh the recompense of (thy) sin.’’ Then, the emendation yuiIn 


suggested by the copyist in the marginal note is superfluous. 


10 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


Thus the structure of our verse would resemble that of the 
verse 8 in the same chapter, with a common verb for both 
hemistichs (A7xp SOY CYAN PR wan cs AwRd). Such a 
verb in our case may be the Hebrew counterpart to the 
Ethiopic #€0 (nat‘a) to flee (=here disappear, cease) which 
is synonymous with the two verbs of the foregoing sentence 
5>”.....7aN°. Our verse ought then to be rendered: ‘‘The 
roaring of the lion and the voice of the fierce lion and the 
teethze (LXX arrogance) of the young lions—flee (all 
disappear, cease)’’. 


XI. Sometimes, on the contrary, a forced traditional 
explanation, based on the Hebrew etymology, sticks to a 
word which has very evidently been employed in its Aramaic 
sense, possibly under foreign influence. For instance, in 
Prov. 24.21 anynn->s ony oy 4740) 022 '7-nx-Nv where 
the Vulgate translates D’nw varits, this vocable is even now 
generally rendered by various periphrases all going back to 
the Hebrew meaning different or changing. So the Author. 
English version reads for the second hemistich ‘meddle 
not with them who change’. Wildeboer translates?! ‘‘Anders- 
gesinnte’’, i. e. otherwise minded (than thou), and nearly so 
do many others. The context, however, requires naturally 
the Syriac sense of the same word: foolish. This signifi- 


cation, indeed, is explicitly indicated in the Peshitta by a 


20 The Septuagint renders D° VDD 3) yavpiaua be dpakovrTwy the arrogance of the 
dragons, where Schleusner (Lexicon in LX X vol. I, p. 485) sees merely a metaphorical 
interpretation. This is not certain. The LXX might possibly have read W= Ar. alin 
grandeur, magnificence, from the root so lo shine, be exalted, eminent, which most 
probably appears again in Qoh. 8,1 838° PID ty) PID VSN OIN NON. Indeed, NI” is 
here parallel to VSN and seems to be identical with lee (root wei) to shine, be 
bright, which is also closely related to Eth. Wie (sAnnaya) fo be beautiful, good. The 


Ethiopic could perhaps justify the intensive form in which the Hebrew verb occurs 


here (RW = NIv”). 


* 


21 See Marti’s Hand-Commentar, Prov. 24, 21. 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 11 


synonym, Hei (xyyw) fools. Our verse should be rendered 
as follows: ‘My son, fear thou the Lord and the King, 


9 


meddle not with fools’, the latter being a popular term for 
all kind of light-headed people departing easily from sound 


religious and political principles. 


XII. Thus, the general cause of very many misinter- 
pretations as well as superfluous and misleading emenda- 
tions lies in the customary state of mind of most exegetes. 
The latter still are wont to face the Biblical text in such a 
way, as if its whole vocabulary were already well known, 
so that nothing is wanting but the interpretation of the 
sentences. They must then consider the puzzling pas- 


’ 


sages either as rare ‘‘idioms’’, or as allusions to some un- 
known historical or local circumstances, or as textual errors. 

On the contrary, lexicography—along with exegesis— 
will be able to progress really, if we keep constantly in 
mind the fact that we know the ancient Hebrew vocabu- 
lary very incompletely and inexactly, as well as that we 
are completely ignorant of other special philological or 
linguistical conditions under which certain texts may have 
arisen. Then, in every puzzling passage, after failing to 
identify exactly a vocable by the comparison of all the 
instances where it seems to occur, we shall have to in- 
quire whether we are not in presence of some philological 
element, lexical, much more rarely grammatical or syn- 
tactical, so far unsurmised. 

In many a case the result may be considered as quite 
reliable. This is when a meaning required by the context 
is really given by an early version and is commonly used 
by some of the cognate languages to a vocable which 
seems to be identical with the Hebrew one under consid- 
eration. Especially the LXX offers now and again ‘‘ pecu- 
liar’’ renderings which have often been considered as free 


paraphrases or metaphorical interpretations, but which 


12 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


comparison of the Hebrew with other Semitic languages 
will prove to represent the genuine meanings of the puzzling 
terms preserved in the Massoretic text and misinterpreted, 
doubted of or subjected to various emendations. 


XIII. The Peshitta, though less important from a 
purely lexicographical viewpoint, may be of use in con- 
nection with later texts on which Aramaic influence has 
acted, as shown above for ow in Prov. 24.21. Greater, 
however, than its lexicographical is its exegetical importance 
which frequently proves indirectly valuable to lexicography. 
At least many parts of it prove conspicuously to have been 
translated from the Hebrew original and by scholars quite 
familiar with the finesses of the sacred tongue, probably 
by Jews. I have pointed out elsewhere22 how the Pe- 
shitta, Qoh. 3. 18, shows us the true meaning of the word 
0729, a famous crux interpretum of long standing. There- 
fore, a special Lexicon of the Peshitta with reference, for 
each vocable, to all the Hebrew instances rendered by it 
and with a Hebrew index at the end, like Schleusner’s 
Lexicon in LX X, would certainly be of great avail to exeges- 
is and occasionally also to lexicography. | 

As illustration, let us try here briefly, with a clue 
furnished by the Peshitta, to interpret one of the most 
difficult passages, usually held by modern scholars either 
as corrupt throughout or as a later?3 interpolation. I mean 
the famous second hemistich in Job 6.7 ‘9n>b 4D apn. 
For the first, wb] yuly MIND, the LXX gives certainly 
the right sense: ‘‘ My soul is unable to rest’’*4 (ravoaoTat). 

22 See REJ. No. 147 (1922), footnote on p. 12. O799=Pesh. }28 8137. 

28 Duhm: Das Buck Hiob (in Marti’s Hand-Commentar), p. 37. 

*4 On account of this Kittel, Duhm and others propose the emendation y))7? 
or y°179 (better would be y= ya). Nevertheless, our yo may be correct, if akin 
to the Ar. verb s that is used to convey the good effect of food or medicines on the 


body. Wahrmund, in his Neu-Arab, Handw., mentions also the meaning “‘sich woh, 


befinden und gedeihen.” 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 13 


As to the second, the Peshitta suggestively renders its 
first two words by (cd yal SES (Sie yx 55:9) waileth 
like a drunkard, something which proves a reading anq 
379. The remaining nm? has then all chances to be the 
subject of mq and, as parallel to wb] (my soul or J), 
may here best point to some part of the body for which 
this verb would be fitting. Now, Delitzsch ascribes to 
oinv2s in Zeph. 1.7 and Job 20.23, the meaning intestines, 
bowels, deriving it from on? 26 to press together in the same 
way as its synonym ap entrails is connected with ap 
to approach, come near. This noun may be identical with 
the final word of our verse, which ought then to be vocalized 
‘one=cnin?). Thus the association ‘mn? mp7 would be 
quite synonymous with -yp wa (Jer. 31.20) or ion yn 
(Cant. 5.4) and analogous to mom...29 (Jer. 48.36). As 
to the above reading 379, it seems merely to have been 
suggested by the Aramaic and Syriac sy drunkard; 
there is no reason which should have determined the author 
to prefer such an Aramaism instead of the Hebrew “jp. 
Therefore, it is rather the Vulgate, by its rendering Jlan- 
guores in accordance with Jewish tradition, that gives 
here the true meaning of the word which is ‘74 “illness, 
languishing, suffering. Our 17> is probably a slight error 
for 7a 7” suffering. The whole hemistich ought then to 
be vocalized qn? ‘ma mq and rendered: ‘‘My bowels 
sound (hum) in suffering’. This is good enough as a 
counterpart to the parrallel: ‘‘My soul (=I) is unable to 
rest.” 

25 Delitzsch: Prolegomena cines neuen Hebr.-Aram. Woerterb., Leipzig 1886 
pp. 193-4. 


See also pind in Gesenius-Robinson’s Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old 


Testament. 


26 See this verb in Levy’s Neuhebr. und Chald. Worterb., Leipzig 1876,t. I p. 494 


a ak 
=~ 


Comp. Arabic wu. 





14 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


XIV. The Vulgate, though last in date of the ancient 
versions, still has occasionally an advantage which is not 
to be underestimated. Thanks to Jerome’s own knowledge 
of Hebrew and, perhaps more, to his close relations with 
Hebrew scholars, he could afford sometimes to recede 
from both the LXX and the Peshitta. In this way, al- 
though usually representing already the later Jewish exegesis, 
he has succeeded in preserving some instances of older 
Jewish tradition anterior to Aramaic influence in Bible in- 
terpretation. Compare, for example, Job 6.7 for above 
179 and Prov. 12.27 for 11¥ 7°97 471M 89 (see below the 
footnote in § XXITT). 


XV. Of course, when the ancient versions cannot 
help us, we still may have the double help of the context 
and the cognate languages. Though in such cases the 
results seem to be of a less sure character, the confirmation 
by Semitic languages of the meaning required by the con- 
text for a peculiar or doubtful vocable gives the genuine- 
ness and identification of the latter a certain degree of 
probability, sometimes even of conspicuous certainty. Non- 
Semitic languages, too, in this regard, may occasionally 


ae 


be available, namely in “‘exotic’’ passages. As a matter 
of fact, Sumerian, Indian, Egyptian and Persian words 
occur in the Bible. When we bear in mind the influence that 
the great Nile Empire must have exerted on its Canaanitish 
border-land which it more than once had under its suzerainty, 
especially at earlier periods of Palestinian history, we should 
rather be surprised at the paucity of Egyptian loanwords 
thus far indicated in the Scriptures. Reserving for another 
occasion more material on this question, I shall content 
myself here with a single suggestion having also an exe- 
getical bearing. Thus, in Is. 19.10 I would best explain 
mane by Copt. WTIT2? weaver (=Eg. Sht-ty). Speaking 


27 See Peyron: Lexicon linguae copticae, Taurini 1835, p. 312. Most Egyptian 
loanwords in the Bible appear to resemble their Coptic counterparts, for instance: 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 15 


of the textile industry, for which the Nile country was 
then?s famous (comp. 0°7¥9 71U8), in a chapter wholly 
of Egyptian content, the author naturally uses the proper 
indigenous term as we do nowadays, for instance, for special 
articles of French importation. Our verse is a_ direct 
sequel of the preceding and our vocable with the correct 
vocalization mny represents simply a synonym of 07178 
in verse 9. nny foundations, however interpreted, is out 
of place here. Nor is it necessary to emend nw as some 
others would have it. The verse means ox977 PNY 
‘And her (=Egypt’s) weavers shall be afflicted; 15w *wy-> 
wpi-9is all hired labourers—sad.”’ 


XVI. Friedrich Delitzsch has several times raised his 
protest against the abuse of Arabic, especially by Gesenius, 


4a 


so as to ‘“‘abase2*9 Hebrew lexicography to be a slave of 
Arabic.’’ On the other hand, he emphasizes on all oc- 
casions the great importance of Assyrian for Biblical philolo- 
gy.» One may thus get the impression, though nothing is 
stated explicitly, that Delitzsch would attribute in this 
regard the foremost rank to Assyrian instead of to Arabic. 
This question, from a purely lexicographical viewpoint, 
leads to the following observations. 

However close the kinship of Assyrian to Hebrew 
may be, it seems practically prevented from yielding to 
Biblical lexicography such good and rich results as those 


which Arabic is able to supply. .The main reason for this 


iN? stream and Copt. ELOOp (Peyr. p.40), M3 ark and Copt. TAIBE coffin, chest 
(Peyr. 234). The borrowing of these vocables may date from the New-Kingdom to 
the language of which Coptic stands morphologically nearer than to Egyptian of the 
Old-Kingdom (Steinfdorff: Kopttsche Gramm., Berlin 1904, p. {). 


28 Also Hebrew ¥W ‘“‘byssus’’, as proved already, is a loanword from Egyptian SS, 


Copt, WENC. 


29 See Fried, Delitzsch’s Philolog. Forderungen an die Hebr. Lexicographie, 
Leipzig 1917, p. 18 seq. Seealso his Prolegomena eines neuen Hebr.-Aram. Wéorterb., 


pp. 22-31 and passim. 





16 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRA PHY 


is the uncertainty reigning so often in the etymological 
identification of Assyrian vocables themselves, uncertainty 
at this rate hardly paralleled by any other Semitic literature. 
Indeed, the cuneiform script represents under the same 
signs entire groups of primitively different Semitic sounds. 
If a Hebrew ¥, for instance, has three phonetical values 
corresponding to Arab. Ye, ye, & and respectively to 
Aram. ¥, y, 0, so that a Hebrew word including this 
character may graphically represent at least three different 
Semitic roots, Assyrian in this regard is in by far worse 
conditions. For not only confusion of related sounds like 
b-p, b-k-q, d-t-t etc. is usual, but as various and many values 
as 8,71, @, & £ and mostly also w° and y are represented 
in the same way. This basic defect, often hindering us 
from detecting the original value of the root, impairs 
considerably the value of Assyrian lexicographical help 
in favor of Arabic, in spite of the high antiquity of the 
former language and its contemporaneousness with ancient 
Hebrew. If Assyrian, having. preserved more primitive 
meanings, offers sometimes a useful clue for the etymology 
of Hebrew vocables otherwise well-known and understood, 
it is much less helpful for further advances in Biblical 


lexicography. 


XVII. On the contrary, the paramount and unequaled 
advantage of Arabic from the above viewpoint is its exact 
notation of all! the original Semitic sounds. Because of 
this, we are enabled to discriminate different roots which 
in Hebrew may be disguised under one and the same gra- 


phical form, as illustrated by the well-known examples: 


30 In Hammurabi's Code, however, the sound w is often clearly represented. 


31 There is only one slight exception to this rule. Arabic, as well as Ethiopic, 
represents by the same character UU (Eth. () two primitive Semitic sounds for which 
the Minaeo-Sabaean alphabet has different signs ¥ (s= Heb. D) and n (s), the latter 
corresponding phonetically with Heb. Y and etymologically with w. See Fritz Hommel: 
Siid-Arabische Chrestomathie, Miinchen 1893, pp. 4 and 10. 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 4 


< 


npn to dig= <a» and 1»n to be ashamed = he - aay to be 

S ipners os if as { 4 we 
bowed down, afflicted =i (r. gis) and my to SINE = gat; 
sipz bird from ie to twitter, whistle and j7Bx nail = Sab 
17x to bind, eee and 17x to show hostility Tie 


G-? 


to harm, damage and 1x flint or 77x pebble =" or yy 


— 


sharp-edged hard stone etc. 


Another great advantage of Arabic as a help for Bib- 
lical lexicography, especially in uncovering and_ identi- 
fying unknown roots, is the stupendous richness of its vo- 
cabulary. This abundance of linguistic material is not 
due only, as is often contended, to a vain and luxuriant 
vegetation of synonyms originating from adjectives or 
metaphors which ultimately have become independent vo- 
cables. Arabic shows also an amazingly considerable vari- 
ety of distinct roots, realizing on an incomparably larger 
scale than any other cognate language all the various 
combinations of consonants possible with a Semitic al- 
phabet. A great number of these roots, even though they 
have deviated more or less from their original meanings, 
are primitive and might be considered as common Semitic. 
It is sometimes argued that this very richness of Semitic 
roots, numerous tribes having certainly contributed vo- 
cables for many centuries, easily encourages abuse and has 
too often led scholars into regrettable errors. This is true 
and may be amply illustrated from any edition of Gesenius’ 
Lexicon. It can, however, serve only as a good reason for 
the Hebrew lexicographer to be always on his guard. But 
at the same time he has here more than anywhere else 
real chances to find what he is looking for. 


A third important quality of Arabic from the above 
viewpoint is its being preserved up to our days as a living 
language. On many occasions it is thus able to bear 
the most actual and convincing witness to the true identity 


18 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


of doubtful Hebrew vocables. Moreover, the vernacular 
Arabic dialects are of special interest in this regard. First 
they certainly may contain old Semitic roots of popular 
use which for certain reasons did not pass into the classi- 
cal language. Secondly, those Arabic dialects spread in 
Semitic countries very likely have absorbed in an immediate 
way a number of indigenous words, besides others which 
may have penetrated into classical Arabic through literary 
or religious influence (from Syriac and Hebrew, for instance). 
For Biblical lexicography, of course, special attention is 
due the vernacular of Palestine, then of Syria. See, for 
instance, the study of the verb w¥n given further on. 
Another curious example of a loanword from Hebrew may 
be hizig3? “‘strong’’=pin, used by Jerusalem fallahin, which 
is unknown in classical Arabic and certainly arose inde- 


pendently of Sy “to compress, bind.”’ 


The fact of Arabic being a relatively young language, 
i. e. fixed by writing comparatively late, so that it has 
had sufficient time to alter the original meanings of many 


roots, constitutes really a defect in its relation to Hebrew 
lexicography. This is, however, not enough to rob it of its 
advantages and to place it ina rank below that of Assyrian. 


XVIII. Even the tentative explanations afforded by 
Arabic for difficult passages in the Bible have often their 
value as clues to surer results or as indications of possi- 
bilities unsurmised. In Qoh. 3.18, for instance, the sen- 
tence og9 nq ae7a ony is rendered by nearly all the 
ancient versions “‘that they are beasts”. To this the 
Peshitta and the Vulgate add also the translation of ond 
ens; tlis—, which proves this word to be authentic. 
As 7a seems to be a mere dittography of apma, the correct 
text would have read o7% mAyma onv. But even so the 


$2 Lohr, Der Vulgdrarab. Dialekt von Jerusalem, Giessen 1905, p. 124. 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 19 


final ond is linguistically puzzling, for it cannot be con- 
sidered as a dativus commodi usually following some verb. 
The only alternative possible is to construe O79 as a pos- 
sessive (=‘‘they have’’). The subject of the sentence o7 
ought then to mean the possessed thing. This would be 
the case, if on proved to signify some characteristic of 
beasts and thus to be in the construct state to 7972. 
Lambert, therefore, supposes instead of onw “something 
like 7 pow’’3s, But this emendation is unnecessary if 


we can admit here a connection with Arabic pls (root was) 
“to run about madly”. Our o7 might be a noun (perhaps 
oO as SENG: of of) equivalent morphologically to 
the masdar was of the Arabic verb and signifying ‘‘straying 
of mind” (comp. last) or ‘‘stupidity.”34 ond mena on 


would thus mean literally “stupidity of beasts is to them’, 
i. e. they have the stupidity of beasts, or they are stupid 
like beasts. The whole verse should then be translated 
as follows: “I said in mine heart concerning the sons of 
men: truly®> God has created them to show that they are 
stupid like beasts’? (=that they have the stupidity of 
beasts). 


XIX. Another example. In two passages mp? is used 
in a meaning strikingly different from that in which the 
verb np> is known to occur. In the first instance, np” 


33 See REJ. t. 28, p. 283. 
34 Comp., for instance, the adjective or participle pale: ‘stupefied, bewildered ”’ 


ee Ona 


in Hariri’s Assemblies uae, London 1897), p.9 (Ass. I): > eniiales 
lel dite Lgsle b “‘And I started to cross its roads like one crazed”’ 
(stupefied). 

z. oja>=0+(8)724. This Sov Al “truly”’ or Assyr. lu. N12 is proved by 


the Peshitta. msi is to be vocalized nino (=nin77>) according to the LX X, Peshi- 
tta and Vulgate. See my article La particule emphatique ‘‘la”’ dans .a Bible, REJ., 1922, 
NOm14 dep: 12. 


20 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


nap Nu. 16.1, all the ancient versions differ from one 
another. Among Jews the most current rendering was 
that of Onkelos 195nx) ‘he broke away”’, followed by the 
Peshitta and made current especially by Rashi and also by 
Nahmanides (XIIIth cent.). So that np was interpreted 
to mean here: he took himself off the community (=he 
founded a separate party). On account probably of this, 
Kittel’s Bible offers tentatively the emendation pom 
side by side with another one, opn, obviously suggested 
by the Vulgate’s periphrasis ecce autem. Ibn-Ezra’s too 
simple view on np”) as an ellipsis for ‘““he took men”’ has 
been followed by Christian%¢ translators and the Jew. Publ. 
Society. The peculiar rendering of the Septuagint €A\aAnoev 
from A@Aéw ‘to speak, indicate, preach’’, induced Schleus- 
ner to suppose in np) a verb different from np>, namely 
nnp37 with the meaning ‘‘to murmur” which he endeavors to 
justify from the Syriac. Though it is not easy to derive such 
a sense from this language,%8 the very idea of a special 
verb distinct from np is fruitful. On one hand the text 
is surely correct, for pom or opy or any other familiar 
term could not have occasioned such wide divergences 
in the ancient versions. On the other hand, the LXX 
surely read np, as is proved by its interpretation which 
seems to be derived from np> “learning, teaching’’. If 


so, Mp) must be an intransitive verb and probably akin 


o_ 


to Arabic e “to be impudent, shameless’, which would 
quite suitably convey the Biblical appreciation of Qorah’s 
rebellious behavior towards Moses. 


Furthermore, this seems likewise to be the meaning 


36 Author. Engl. Version; see also, for instance: Biblia Sacra, sive Testamentum 


Vetus ab Im. Tremello el Er. Junio ex Hebraeo Latine redditum, Amsterdami MDLXIX. 
87 See Schleusner: Lexicon in LXX, vol. II, pp. 351-2. 


v Vv 
8 All that Syriac can offer here for comparison is: VoaQweo (APMP) ‘to laugh”’ 


or wwe. (APpnpnx) ‘‘to gurgle, make a sound as running water”’; ws oZ} 


(Mpnk) “to cry out, raise an outcry, cry for help.” 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY vA 


mtended in Job 15.12: 9°37 yon? AD) FA? ANP nd. One 
might be at first sight satisfied with the usual translation 
of this verse: ‘‘Why doth thine heart carry thee away? 
and what do thy eyes wink at?’ A close examination, 
however, shows difficulties for both verbs. I, as a 
aTra& ypagouevoy, attracted already Ibn-Ezra’s atten- 
tion. The above interpretation of this verb is due merely 
to its outward resemblance to a metathesis of the Aramaic 
and later Hebrew 197 which does not occur in the Bible. 
The LXX’s rendering émnveyxar, from émimépw, suggests 
rather the reading 71917” (comp. Budde) which is the most 
likely and in best harmony with the context. Indeed 
Sayed, like 1y 1oa-Proyv. 30.13, mon oy Prov. 6.17 
and Ps. 18, 28 etc., conveys the idea of “‘arrogance.”’ Now, 
as to 439 4nNp* which is here the parallel of Fry 1917’, 
it is important to note that both the Septuagint and the 
Peshitta (€roAunoey ‘to dare’, 5221 “to be uplifted’’) 
do not render the final object suffix 4 of the verb. They 
seem to have read only np’ which they translated as an 
intransitive verb expressing, in good parallelism to }1917 
yy, the idea of “arrogance”’ and identical with the above 


Arabic 35 “to be impudent.’ The correct text of the 


9 2 


whole verse may have been: pry pory am 4a (8s =)mp. 7129 
“Why doth thine heart dave and why are thy eyes 
lifted up?” In both instances then, in Nu. 16,1 and Job 
15.12, we should have to deal not with the customary 
verb npy but with a quite different one, np (np) =z 35, 
thus far unknown in Hebrew and belonging to the group 
of verbs primae ’=}. The right vocalization, therefore, 
in the above instances would be np, like y7. 

39 The Targum reads here ]”912"5 7”, deriving the meaning from nd‘ teaching’ 
as did the Septuagint to Nu. 16,1. There is no need to insist on the worthlessness 


of this interpreration, though followed by Rashi. It does not even prove the authen- 


ticity of the final 7 of 7M’, rendered also by the Vulgate. Even in the case of this 


ZL A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


XX. From the viewpoint which interests us here, 
great attention ought to be paid also to Ethiopic. 
Certain philological features enable this south-Semitic 
language to yield precious help to Hebrew lexicography, 
namely, in uncovering the genuine meaning of obscure 
words or in suggesting the probable etymology of otherwise 
well-known Biblical vocables. For the exactness in noting 
the Semitic sounds, it ranks second after Arabic. Indeed, 
the Ethiopic alphabet has distinct characters for different 
sounds which are represented in Hebrew by the same sign. 
Thus, Hebrew nm corresponds to Ethiopic either a (h) or 
*y (h); Heb. ¥ corresponds to Eth. either & (s) or 8 (d). 
But the main advantage of this probable offshoot of south- 
Arabic is its having remained semantically very near to 
primitive Semitic, much nearer than Arabic. There are 
numerous examples in Ethiopic which can show clearly the 
etymology of isolated Arabic vocables or the original 


meanings from which Arabic derived secondary ones. Com- 
Soe s ; 
pare, for instance, Ar. asx» ‘‘book”’ and Eth. Amhé. (sahafa) 


. So - “7~ 
“to write’; Ar. j9e “fortune, omen, augury” and Eth. 


Fat 
es 
ptt 


Pq: (‘Of) “fowl; Ar. Garb “physician”’ (Cndo “to practise 
medicine’) and Eth. MAM (tabib)19 ‘‘wise, learned’’; Ar. 


Bn 


o> “to remain and keep to”’ (a place) or o> “inside of 
apartments of women, curtain, lair”? and Eth. 4.22 (hadara) 
“to dwell.” Quite often, when Hebrew would seek in 
vain its counterpart in Arabic, Ethiopic offers the same 
vocables with the same meaning or nearly so. Compare, 
for instance, 1237 ‘“‘to unite, be joined’? and #Néd or "hNé, 


Latin version which is by far earlier than the Targum, the mistaking of the intransitive 
verb np” for npd has had sufficient time to cause the object suffix required by this 
transitive verb to creep into the text. A period of about two centuries separates the 


Vulgate from the Peshitta. 
§ a 


40 A quite analogous derivation of meaning is offered by Ar. aKa ** phy- 


- 


sician’’ (also ‘‘learned, wise’’) and Heb. D5N “wise.” 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 23 


moar “lion” and AC® “wild beast’”’, paw “to swarm, teem”’ 
and 2A “to germinate, sprout”, Up “small, insignificant” 
and $a} ‘thin’, on “strength” and "#2A, pr “to run” 
and @& (rosa), nx “moon” and @G€4, np “to make bald” 
and #€cdh (rare) etc. Much more important, however, 
is another fact, namely, that sometimes Ethiopic is of all 
the Semitic languages the only one to present the exact 
counterpart of Hebrew vocables. Compare, for instance, 
pnw ‘“tolaugh” and Wah? (Sahaqa), 778 “to gather, pluck’’ 
and @é@& (araya), po “to count” and 4.2 ‘‘to measure”’, 
ppi ‘cleft’? (of rock) and 3##. Again a very important 
feature, from our viewpoint, is the fact that the Ethiopic 
vocalization, as has already been pointed out by Néldeke,*! 
is more clearly and surely represented than in any other 
of the Semitic languages; for the vowels are here attached 
to the body of the consonants themselves. Originating 
from a south-Arabic stock and transported into an African 
country where it was isloated in non-Semitic surroundings, 
Ethiopic quite unlike Arabic stopped developing secondary 
meanings easily. Two further factors that may readily 
have contributed to this effect are, on the one hand, the 
fixing of this language in writing by the translation of 
the Bible as early as the [Vth century C. E. and, on the 
other hand, the very scanty literary production in general. 
Thus we have every reason to expect valuable help for 
Hebrew lexicography and Biblical exegesis from the Ethi- 
opic language. Let us, therefore, briefly examine a few 


suggestions. 


XXI. The authenticity of the a@maé Xeyouevov vp 
in Ez. 16.47 is most usually called in question by modern 
lexicographers and commentators, so that there is no lack 
in emendations proposed. It is, however, quite important 
to ascertain that the traditional Jewish interpretation 


41 Th. Nodsdeke: Die Semitischen Sprachen, Leipzig 1899, pp. 68-9. 


24 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


little (ups? wyo “a little bit’’) finds its corroboration in 
Ethiopic, which reveals likewise the root yup of the much 
discussed vocable. Indeed, this is the root of Eth. Raw? 
(quatit) ‘thin’, APMM (aqtetata) “to make thin’. vup 
is related to }¥p as the Eth. root #Mm (qatata) to #Ms 
(qatana). There is even an exact morphological corres- 
pondence between the two languages with regard to the 
adjectives respectively derived from both roots. Thus 
Ethiopic choosing the form pa‘il has $a} (qatin) and RauP 
(quatit), while Hebrew preferring here the form bys 
(comp. 097 pon) presents yup and up=vup (comp. 57 for 
bb bp for 5bp). The right vocalization would be yp. 
The latter is then a mere synonym‘? of yup, and up vyns 
means literally ‘like a small little” (=‘“‘like a little bit’’). 
Moreover, 0p need no more remain isolated. Its 
root WYP reappears in several instances where it had 
been mistaken for ¥1p, a supposed parallel form of pp, 
with the meaning “‘to feel a loathing’. This is certainly 
wrong. Ezek. 6.9 077252 wpyn reveals unmistakably the 
root vup in the niph‘al form and is to be rendered exactly: 
‘and they shall be belittled against their faces’? (=at 
themselves). The same niph‘al occurs again in Ezek. 
20.43 and 36.31 where the correct vocalization ought to 
be onspn instead of onypn which may have been influenced 
by the holem of the first instances wpn Ez. 6.9. The 
fact that this verb occurs three times in Ezekiel certainly 
gives some good support to the authenticity of the above 
adjective up “‘little, small’’ in the same book. The hith- 
42 See Rashi and especially Qimhi. 
43 Thus OP would not be an abridgment of the word ]UP, as believed by F. Perles, 
Analekten sur Textkrilik des Alten Testaments, Miinchen 1895, p. 30. 
44 The same niph‘al occurs also in Job. 10,1 (WD3) mp) for m9p)- As to Job 
8,14 yb05 vip? “WN, as long as it can not represent a noun parallel to w’ADy m3, the 


best woud be to consider vip? (=p?) as the Imperfect Qal of OOP and to render 


the hemistich as follows: ‘‘Whose hope is small.’ 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 25 


po‘el form met with in Ps. 119.158 (aywipnEi) and ibidem 
139.21 (obIpns&) may well be translated, in accordance with 
the usual Jewish interpretation, to quarrel from the original 


meaning ‘“‘to belittle each other.’?’ Anyhow, a root vp, 
synonymous with pp, thus far has been supported by no 


positive philological proofs. 


XXII. Ethiopic can also reveal the unknown etymology 
of the Biblical verb Ann and the noun Anny derived from it. 
The verb is usually translated ‘“‘to snatch up’’, but has 
in all4s the instances where it occurs five or coals (burning) 
as object. Compare Is. 30.14 7p wy ninnb; Prov. 6.27 
ipna wx wx amg; Prov. 25.22 wri Sy ann ans od op. 
The noun 7mm “‘fire-pan, censer, snuff-dish’’ denotes 
properly a utensil to serve as receptacle for burning things. 
Undoubtedly, therefore, the root must originally have 
contained the idea of ‘“burning”’ or ‘“‘kindling’”’. This is, 
indeed, confirmed by Ethiopic "rfr@ (hatawa) ‘to be kind- 
led, to burn and light”’ (candle, lamp or the like). Starting 
from the basic idea of kindling and burning, the common 
term would have developed in Ethiopic as an intransitive 
verb, while in Hebrew it took a transitive sense, ‘‘to kindle’”’ 
satisfactorily suiting the above mentioned passages. 


XXIII. A last example will help us to find out the right 
interpretation of the second hemistich of Prov. 12.27 
pion 7p? o4N-7)m, which has been much discussed and very 
differently rendered. Both the Septuagint and the Peshitta 
read: pian O78 Ap? pM “ 
treasure.’’ To say nothing of the inversion implied, this 


and a diligent man is a precious 


interpretation offers rather a poor parallelism to the first 


45 The Biblical lexica (Gesenius-Rob., B. Davidson) put quite wrongly under 
this root 4A? of Ps. 52,7 which is evidently nothing else than another vocalization 
for the hiph’il oialaw ‘the shall shatter thee’’. This was well understood by the Targum 
42"74rm (followed by Rashi) and, still earlier, by Aquila who gives the rendering TTONTEL 
(See Fields’s Hexaplorum Fragmenta, Oxonii 1875, t.II, p. 176). 


26 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


hemistich. The Vulgate renders without inversion: ef 


‘ 


substantia hominis ertt aurt pretium ‘‘and the price of gold 


shall be the substance of a man.’”’ Thus Jerome read 7p 
yin ‘the price of gold”. The English authorized version 
supposes a text 1p? p17N OS 71M “but the substance of a 
diligent man is precious.”’ Waildeboer has even suggested 
to read yinn® as an infinitive “to be diligent’’; but there 
is no other example of such a verb either in Hebrew or 
in the cognate languages. 

Now the first hemistich expresses the reluctance of 
the slothful man for any effort, whatever translation we 


may accept for Jom‘7: whether “to roast”’ after the Syriac or 


46 Wildeboer, Die Spriiche (in Marti’s ‘‘Handkommentar’’), Freiburg 1897, p. 38. 


47 Both interpretations of ww are very unlikely. Neither of them can show 
any connection with the ancient versions. Both, more especially Schultens’ Arabic 
suggestion (‘‘to start the game’’) which is prevalent among modern commentators, 
evoke a vivid image of hunting life. This, however, was never popular enough among 
Hebrews, especially of a later epoch, to expect of it typical illustrations for current 
proverbs. Anyway, the above image would offer rather a far-fetched example of 
slothfulness which the Book of Proverbs, in other passages, ordinarily illustrates by 
characteristic instances borrowed from agricultural life, as is natural for an agricultural 
people. Compare Prov. 20,4 yr xd Oxy FAM ‘A sluggard plougheth not in autumn” 
(or ‘‘after harvest’’); ibidem 10.5 W399 j2 VSp3a 077) bon ]2 Y°p3 Us “He that gather- 
elh in summer is a wise son, but he that sleepeth in harvest is a son that causes shame.”’ 
In a similar way Prov. 6,8 describes diligence: m9DND VSP. MIX mond Y’p3 pon 
“‘Provideth (the ant) her bread in the summer, gathereth her food in the harvest.” 

The Jewish rendering of WT “to roast, singe’’ is due to later Aramaic influence, 
when the verb NM had penetrated into post-biblical Hebrew. In the time of Jerome 
this interpretation must not yet have been very current. Two weighty reasons seem to 
indicate that the Massoretic 7M differs from the primitive text. First, as yg (7M) 
is common in Syriac, the Peshitta could not have missed coinciding with the Jewish 
interpretation, if reading JM. Secondly, not only do the Septuagint, the Peshitta and 
the Vulgate differ altogether from this interpretation which, for ] 1, would necessarily 
be imposed upon them at a time when Aramaic (including Syriac) was paramount in 
all western Asia, but all these ancient versions seem to point to one and the same 
verb with the basic meaning “‘to gather.’’ This general sense, of course, had to comply 


with the object "PX. As it was rendered ‘‘game’’ by both the Septuagint and the 


Peshitta, so the former interprets the verb émirevierar, from émiTvyxavw ‘to 
reach, get, attain, obtain’’; and the latter gives the same meaning of the sentence with 
‘“‘oame’’ as the subject Jp; ocd) rt) “game doth not meet’’ (occur, present itself). 
But very curious and suggestive is the Vulgate’s rendering of this hemistich: ‘Non 
inveniet fraudulentus lucrum”, ‘The defrauder shall reach no gain.”” No more hunting 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY A 


“to start’’ according to the Arabic. The second hemistich, 
as antithesis, ought naturally to convey the readiness of 
the diligent man even for hard work, the latter leading 
finally to great success. In opposition to 7°97, therefore, 
the subject would most probably be here p1nn “‘the diligent 
man’’, at the end of the verse. The hemistich, then, 
evidently begins with a direct complement, 1i7), thus giv- 
ing the sentence a regularly reversed construction. Ac- 
cordingly, we must find the verb which rules this object 
7 somewhere preceding the subject ping. Such a verb 
can be found only in our 1p’ that ought to be vocalized 
Cupi=) 7p, from 1p “to dig, bore’. The same root 
as a verb occurs in one more passage repeated in two parallel 
documents, namely in Is. 37.25 and II Ki. 19. 24: 1% 
on omnwi nap “I have digged (a well) and drunk water’”’. 
The identity of the verb and consequently also the authen- 


here. This is certainly an echo, even if not quite exact, of the old Jewish interpretation 
anterior to Aramaic influence and still known in Jerome’s time; otherwise he would 


have followed in the main the Septuagint. Indeed YX has two distinct meanings of 


which ‘‘game’’ was the best known in later times, owing to the verb 18 ‘‘to hunt” 
which is common in the Bible. The seond signification is “‘food, provisions’’, 

established beyond question by expressions like O¥ ON? (Jos. 9,5) ‘‘their food-supply”’, 
the denominative verb TOXT (ibidem 9,12 and also 9,4 instead of YUM) ‘‘to supply 


oneself with provisions’’, and other instances. In our proverb, too, thisis the genuine 
sense of 1X. As regards 1M, the similar rendering of all the three above versions 


seems naturally to point to a textual error for 7. This verb ala would be the equiv- 


a oe 


alent of Arabic —5 ~, ‘‘to gather”’ (fruit) and etymologically akin to Hebrew AN 
“harvest-time, autumn’’, but ought not to be confused with the later denominative 
verb of the same stem, an ““to spend the harvest-time’”’. Such a slight textual error, 
| for *, was unavoidable as a consequence of the misinterpretation "?¥ ‘‘game"’ at 
a time when on the one hand the correct meaning of ‘WN. “to gather the fruit’’, was 
forgotten, and on the other our now hapax legomenon 47M “‘to roast, singe’’ was 
quite usual. Weare thus permitted to conjecture that the above textual error occurred 
about the middle of the period which elapsed between the Vulgate and the Massora, 


i. e. either at the end of the Vth or at the beginning of the VIth century. Finally 
YS TD ahaa nb ‘the sluggard gathereth not (even) his provision’”’ yields the best 


parallelism and harmonizes in spirit with the similar proverhs above mentioned. Thus 
WN is but a synonym of “aS and F}ON. 


28 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


ticity of this text are sufficiently warranted by the deriva- 
tive “po ‘‘spring, fountain’’ and the Arabic‘s verb yk 
(555) “to cut a round hole in, scoop out’’; so that the 


suggested emendation *™713 may certainly be dispensed 
with. Now our above proverb, too, speaks of the diligent 
man digging out a treasure. A phrase like jin ap is 
synonymous with mi~veD WIDN) Job 3.21. As to oy 
that accompanies 17 so closely (maqqeph), it can represent 
here only some qualificative of “‘a treasure’. We may 
thus be in the presence of a Hebrew counterpart to the 
adjective A489” (’adam) “‘fair, pleasant, delightful, charming”’, 
corresponding in the Ethiopic version of the Bible with 
Hebrew? Msi, 2Ww ,o°y2 ,any. Then, ow ine would be 
a synonymous phrase of 79m) 1x18 Prov. 21.20. So that the 
exact rendering of our hemistich ping 7p. oqNTim would 
read as follows: ‘And the diligent (man) diggeth out a 
delightful treasure.” 

The following studies in Hebrew roots will be more 
detailed and systematic, so as to present a more concrete 
illustration of the general ideas laid down in this introduc- 


tion. 


48 Ethiopic ove may present a mere metathesis of the first two radicals of our 


verb. 


49 For Biblical references see Dillmann, Lexicon linguae Aethiopicae, pp. 800-801, 
Lipsiae MDCCCLXV. 

50 O18 **pleasant, fair’’ may, as conjectured by Gesenius (Thesaurus 1829, p. 24), 
be derived from O78 “‘to be red’. A similar connection is to be noticed in Russian bet- 
ween krasniy ‘‘red"’ and krasiviy (or prekrasniy) ‘nice, beautiful’, both belonging to 


thesame root. Also JY ‘‘scarlet’’ may possibly be related to Ar. (tr ‘to shine, flash”’ 


and Eth. D?$@ (sannaya) “be beautiful”. 


BLY NMOLOGIGALSS PUDIES: 


XXIV. 1. 78 (root Ts) “to be strong and powerful.” 


The first hemistich of Job 31.23, 58 4'8 obs an 0D, 
puzzles the reader by the lack of a verb. The most usual 
way of translating it is: ‘For calamity from God was a 
terror to me.’ Compare Targum: ran °om> m>7 onK 
sm2x. This translation thus follows literally the Mas- 
soretic text, as if it had a sentence of reverse construction 


before it with bs tx as subject and x np as predicate. 


It is, however, noticeable that out of more than twenty 
examples of Tx occurring in the Bible none, when used in 
the construct state or when provided with pronominal 
suffixes, refers to the author of the “‘calamity or distress”’ 
but all do so to the victim of it. Therefore the above in- 
terpretation of 5s TN as “calamity from God” must at 
first sight seem questionable. Also an expression like 
»"98 IND in the sense of “a terror to me’’ can hardly be 
considered Hebrew; since “to me”’ in the meaning of for 
me, after a predicate noun, is generally expressed by °9 52 


instead of *bx 


While accepting in the main the above meaning of 
the sentence, Ehrlich 53 nevertheless suggests the emenda- 
tion: bx v bs anpocp “for the most terrible of terrors is 
the hand of God’’, taking by amp as a superlative. But 
such an aphoristic form of sentence, general and objective, 
to say nothing of the heavy and improbable repetition of 


bx, does not seem simple enough as a mere parallel of the 


61 Nearly so read the traditional Jewish explanation, the English authorized 
version, Saadya, Philippson, Kautzsch, Budde, the Jew. Pubi. Soc. etc. 
BARE OM DA LOL MIStance seLOVen O.ns, OS. o 24 22 alone rk (e202 20,o ei: 
58 Randgtossen zur hebr. Bibe., Leipzig 1913, Band YI, p. 304. 
29 


30 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


following hemistich which is personal and subjective: inswn 
baix xd ‘And by reason of his majesty I could do nothing.’ 
It is the more interesting to compare with the above 
general interpretation the two most ancient versions of 
the Bible which seem to differ from the MT. Indeed both 
the Septuagint and the Peshitta render our hemistich by 
a normal sentence of logical structure with amp as subject and 
with a special verb of similar meaning. Thus the Septuagint 
reads: goBos yap ouvéoxey we ‘For a terror overwhelmed 
me.’ The Peshitta reads: saps lad oddo99 Saco 
Cinyts NO9ST AN2NI7 29vD) “For the terror of God seized 
me’’ (more exactly: ‘‘made me tremble, terrified me.’’) 
It seems, therefore, very probable that the Hebrew 
text, too, would contain here some verb. Indeed, Kittel 
deeming our verse corrupt, does not hesitate to read: IND 
*ounx’ 9x. Now, if this bx is beyond all question as proved 
by the above Syriac version, a verb like xns& ‘“‘to come”’ 
would appear really weak as a predicate to the expression 
‘the terror of God’? and when compared with ouvvéoxev 
and wads.) Ciny’ts). Seemingly, it would have been sug- 


gested by the supplementary explanation to our hemistich, 
embodied in the Syriac verse: ass 12] ne aZé O9Y NNN TIAN) 
“and the calamity from Him came upon me.” 

As to the Hebrew text, it can contain a verb with a 
meaning similar to that of the above verbs of the two 
earliest versions only. Such a verb, almost without any 
real text emendation, might be 7x from the root 7s that has 
given the usual noun wx ‘‘calamity’’ assumed to occur 
in our verse. Thus the Bible would have preserved here 
a unique example of the Arabic verb Sit (root dol) “to 
be strong and powerful’’. Our text would not be properly 
corrupt, but there might have occurred a mere mistake 
in the separation of the words, the final yod of 8 be- 
longing really to the beginning of the next word, namely 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRA PHY 31 


the Imperfect +t. Then our hemistich would read: snp »D 
eby=) cx py by “For the terror of God was mighty upon 
me’’. Sy yx would be, with more emphasis, synonymous 
with »Sy pi in expressions like mpin °9y 'A 4 (Ezek. 
3.14) “and the hand of the Lord was strong upon me’; 
aNy 27y pin 79on-Iam (1 Chr. 21.4) ‘and the King’s word 
prevailed against Joab’; ayrn omy pin -> (Gen. 47.20) 


y 


‘‘because the famine was sore upon them”’, etc. 
Obviously I consider this verb 4x (r. 7°8) akin to the 

noun x “calamity, misfortune”’ (something strong versus 

us) and both the verb and the noun to be connected with 


the above Arabic root df, mediae *, rather than with the 
verb SH, mediae 1 (root 9!) meaning ‘‘to ate 
as admitted by many,* or than the geminate of “to 
happen, overwhelm” proposed by others. The evolution 
of meaning from ot (r. dol) “to be strong and powerful”’ 


up to Tx “calamity, distress’? would find a parallel in the 


= 


verb (3 ‘fasten tight, strengthen, increase in violence”’ 
and the derived noun gah or Fhadkss ‘misfortune, misery, 
calamity’’. Compare also Assyrian dandnu ‘‘to be strong” 
and dannatu5> ‘distress, affliction.’’ 

As to the last word of our hemistich, °>s instead of 
%y, it is sufficient to remember that the confusion of the 
prepositions bx and by occurs so often in the Bible that 
is seems quite superfluous to quote any examples.*6 

Finally, with this verb ry we get the most natural 
parallelism between the two halves of our verse: “ For 
the terror of God was mighty upon me, by reason of 


His majesty I could do nothing.”’ 


54 See 7x, for instance, in Gesenius’ or in Fuerst’s lexicon to the Oid Testament. 

55 See Muss-Arnolt: A concise Dictionary of the Assyrian language, Berlin 1905, 
aR PASI 

5@ See Friedrich Delitzsch: Die Lese-und Schreibefehler im Aiten Testament, 
p. 124, Berlin and Leipzig 1920. 


32 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


XXV. 2.2 ‘‘a field for pasture, a wide valley”’. 

This vocable exercised considerably the mind of com- 
mentators of Zeph. 2. 14: °1u"mnm 95 DOTY ADINA 1x37). 
Some interpreted it in the sense of ‘‘people’’. However, not 
only is there no reason for such an expression as ‘‘animals of 
the people’, but even an implied meaning such as ‘‘the 


yy 


animals of all the nations”’ is logically out of the question 
here: as a rule animals of very different countries cannot 
exist in the same climate; and why is it necessary that the 
animals of all the nations should be there? Similarly the 
meaning ‘‘crowd”’ or “‘multitude’’ does not suit here, for 
then we should expect 7’n 53 "1. or something else, but 
certainly not the present 1 wn 5p. 

Now it is important to note that the Septuagint and 
the Targum almost coincide in their interpretation of this 
phrase: the Septuagint renders -1n"n by Ta Onpla tns ys 
‘the animals of the earth’; the Targum has x12 nyn 
‘the animals of the field’’. Basing themselves on these 
renderings many of the newer critics have come to the con- 
clusion that our text is corrupt5? and should read ‘tw inn 
‘‘the animals of the field’. Even Ben-Jehuda who thinkss 
that ‘for us, for lexical purposes, the main thing is the ex- 
isting text, and therefore we are compelled to accept the 
word °)) in the sense of field, forest, wilderness’’—even he 
admits on the other hand that “from the translation of the 
Septuagint it would appear that they had before them 1n’n 
maw or 1y°’’ and therefore ‘‘this is a doubtful word whose 
origin is unknown”’. 


” 


However, here likewise the Arabic language helps us 
to bring the Massoretic text and the early translations into 
perfect harmony. Indeed, the word *) in our text is old 
and genuine and needs no correction. It is the equivalent 


of Arabic > whose meaning coincides exactly with the 


8? Zettschrift f.d. alttest. Wissenschaft, X, 194. 
68 Ben-Yehuda: Thesaurus, II, 719, note. 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRA PHY 33 


translations of the Septuagint and the Targum. Freytag*» 
renders it terra, regio ampla, campus. 

In this way the passage in Zephaniah is explained with- 
out difficulty. The prophet wishes to depict the destruction 
of Nineveh and Asshur (beginning with verse 13) as he de- 
picted in the same chapter (verses 5-7) the destruction of 
the Philistine cities: the land will be laid waste without 
inhabitant and will be converted into a’place of pasture for 
cattle. -1m’n thus really means ‘“‘the animals of the field’’, 
i.e. cattle that graze on pasture, in juxta position with o-77y 
of the preceding hemistich. It is even likely that this 
1 is derived from the same root as the word &’1(comp 


ly >.) 


pol : (1) ‘to recede, turn the 


XXVI.° 3a. 1297 comp. 
back, flee, go away’’. 

In Job 19. 18: °3-19237% 7D1PsS 73 OND D91y-01 nobody 
doubts that it is related to the ordinary verb 1137 in the 
sense of speech. However, since plain speech yields no 
satisfactory sense to this phrase and expresses no clear 
thought, the word is made to yield the sense of ‘‘words of 
mockery, derision, defamation, etc.’’ In this sense approx- 
imately all the translators and interpreters of ancient and 
modern times have construed it. But is it not surprising: 
if spite or wickedness is to be understood here, why is it 
that just as Job rises they mock at him? 

In order to understand this error we must observe well 
and carefully the fundamental characteristic of the com- 
plaints which are expressed by Job in verses 13-19 of our 
chapter. Job does not accuse anyone of active cruelty 

69 The ancient origin of the word "11 here need not be impaired in the least even if 


we note that Freytag quotes also a synonym of that family whose form corresponds 
S - 


much more to the Hebrew ")): are non conveniens alicui terra ‘‘earth of no use to 


&. 
anybody", i.e. abandoned, uncultivated. 


34 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


against him, such as mockery, calumny, denunciation, 
etc. It would be difficult to imagine such a thing in the 
East with reference to an unfortunate man afflicted with 
terrible suffering, and especially with reference to Job who 
was a lord among his people» But one thing Job complains 
bitterly of, and that is his great lonesomeness. All his 
acquaintances and friends have abandoned and forgotten 
him; his servants consider him a stranger and refuse to 
obey his commands; his repulsive disease and the putrid 
breath of his mouth or nostrils(?303 325 *mam snwed A417) 
keep away from him his wife and all those who were wont 
to be in his company (710 np). In short, all abandon him, 
not out of spite or cruelty, but because of repulsiveness and 
loathing (nayn...°2 OND). 


And indeed, in accordance with all this train of thoughts, 
also °A7277) means nothing else but “they runaway from 
me, they turn their back on me, they go away’’. And so 
exactly is the meaning of this root in Arabic, although in 


the Hiph‘il form aol. Accepting our meaning of 727, 
we obtain a satisfactory correspondence of thought bet- 
ween the two hemistichs: ’2 10ND OS yy oy “Even urchins 
despise me’’ on account of my great repulsiveness, 7D1PX 
> het fs He a 


46 


when I rise (to come near to them), they turn 
away from me, (turn their back on me)’’. It is noteworthy 
that in this rendering our sentence will correspond, hemi- 
stich for hemistich, with the verse immediately following: 
Gata =) 29D) -naAN-AN oD eno@b> (03 1OND =)*IAyn. 


XXVIT. 3a. (2) “to follow someone, go in someone's 
footsteps’. 


The above mentioned meaning—to recede, to flee—does 
not suit Cant. 5.6: i373 ANxX’ wD), coming immediately 
after the verbs 12y pon which already have this signification. 


However, it is quite possible to ascribe to it with sufficient 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 39 


--vF 
certainty the second meaning of -204: to follow somebody, 


go in someone’s footsteps. For this Arabic verb, which 


Go? 


is originally connected with re ‘back, hinder part’’, ap- 
parently evolved its meanings from this concept in two 
different, almost opposite, directions: on the one hand, it 
has reference to the back of the subject, in which case 
it means ‘‘to recede, turn the back, go away’’, as in the 
above-mentioned passage of Job; on the other hand it in- 
volves the back of the object, meaning then “to follow some- 
one, go in the footsteps of, etc.’’ The latter meaning fits 
well Cant. 5. 6. Here there is no question about words 
spoken by the lover, since he has already disappeared (pon 
339); but just because of his disappearance his beloved 
went out in his footsteps, ran after him to get hold of him. 
iMa1=inik a7; it is a transitive verb, the 1 being the 
pronominal object suffix. Ns’ ‘wD] signifies not the 
pleasure felt at hearing the words ofthe lover, but the im- 
patience experienced at the lengthy search and vain running 
to and fro, as is made clear in the words immediately follo- 
wing: 7229 85. ypoxap nese Ndi inwpsa. Indeed, the 
Shulamite utters her words in logical order and natural 


sequence: 
ay pon om 175 008 onnnD 
I7373 ANY’ wD) 
oy 8d) yap Wns xd) wenwpa 


Po tie Sb asain tozsubdue?. 


This Hiph‘il occurs twice in the Book of Psalms. From 
18. 48 *nnn omy 727 °9 maps jman dsm one cannot judge 
as to the original meaning of this verb, despite the fact that 
its derived sense is made evident by the preposition *nnn 
pointing to ‘“‘subduing”. However, it is a philological 
axiom that every word, whether noun or verb, had (or its 
root had) originally a concrete signification and that only 


36 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


by way of metaphor did it receive subsequently derived 
meanings, as need for them arose. The second passage 
47. 4 yp5an nnn ovond) aennn ony tat may give us 
the proper clue as to the origin and etymological sense 
of watn. If it is possible to say wb37 nnn WAIF in 
the sense of ‘‘subduing’’, then it is clear that we are 
dealing here with a striking expression illustrating the 
concrete picture with which primitive man presented to 
himself the concept of victory over his enemy: the conqueror 
steps with his foot on the back of the conquered. A707 
then may be construed as a denominative verb closely 
related to ,9O ‘‘back’’, which has been preserved in 
Arabic, just as the Hiph‘il o-bo17 mx Jonan “he caused 
the camels to bend their knees” is related to the noun 
p72 or yuan to oyis. Also y27 meant originally no 
doubt ‘to cause somebody to bend his legs*, to kneel”’, 
only by metaphor it received subsequentiy the abstract 
meaning of ‘subduing an enemy”’ or even “oppression of 
the soul’’. And so it seems very probable that the Hiph‘il 
7177 meant originally ‘“‘to cause somebody to bend his 
back’’, and through metaphor it came to mean ‘‘subdue’”’. 


XXIX. 4. “quaking, roar, shout”’. 

The author of the book of Job, in describing the prow- 
ess of the horse and its eagerness to fight, says of it in 39- 
25: MNT TDN BY "73. The traditional interpretation which 
is still current among most of the commentators is as fol- 
lows: “‘As often as (he heareth the sound of) the trumpet 
(calling for war) he rejoiceth exceedingly’’. And therefore 
Gesenius, Budde, and others think that Ia is a synonym 
of and is derived from the well-known stem 4 ‘‘sufficient’’. 


60 Perhaps some difference should be indicated between 9/737, 37M, on the one 
hand, and y’D7 on the other: the latter hiph‘il may be derived directly from the qal 
yD. But there is not much importance in this difference, the qal yy itself being 
probably derived from the noun O'y93. And besides we find the qal 42, a denominative 
from 0°D723, in Syriac and twice in the Hebrew Scriptures themselves. 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 37 


The translations of the Septuagint and the Vulgate agree 
fairly with the above sense: the former exhibits ca\7vyyos Oe 
onuatvovons ‘when the trumpet makes known”’, when it 
gives a sign (for an attack); the latter has: ubi audierit buc- 
cinam ‘“‘when he has heard (the sound of) a trupmet’’. Evi- 
dently both these versions understood 7)y "ta as an ellip- 
tic clause and supplied the missing verb. The Septuagint 
added it to "Dw as subject; the Vulgate construed pip of 
verse 19 as subject and Dw as a direct complement. 

Strange here is the Peshitta version which renders 
15wv 73 by one word 89pa= Heb. Yipa taken adverbially, 
and the whole phrase in this way: (the horse) sayeth ‘‘ha, 
ha!’ (=neigheth) in a (loud) voice. But it is difficult 
to determine whether the Syriac translator read 1Dw’7A3 
in one word, in the manner of the Talmudic expressions 
8D973 ,TAy'ta, and translated ‘in the voice of a trumpet”’, 
but for the sake of shortness employed only one word xbpa 
aloud,—or indeed the word 7 has also a special meaning, 
‘shout, roar, quaking’’, which had been forgotten in the 
course of time. 

It is surprising that Sa‘adya offers an interpretation® 
which is less satisfactory than all the others: piadbx »dx 1m 
"SNNPR NAT Yip, ie. ‘and he (the horse) will say to the 
trumpet: this is the brotherhood!’ Accordingly 15v *1a=> 
to the trumpet. It is especially surprising in the case of 
Sa‘adya, since he knew the Arabic language perfectly. Yet 
he overlooked the fact that in this language there is a word 
supplying the key to the understanding of this passage, to the 


original meaning of the word 13. This word is ist 


(Freytag: susurrus, sonus),‘‘a noise, a roar®!4, a shout’’,which 


61 Version arabe du Livre de Job de R. Saadia ben Josef al-Fayyoumi, publiee avec 
des notes hebraiques par W. Bacher, Paris 1899, . 
61a) See for instance: Lingus leis pe a=, AS LIL lot, 
pl 1 cas Lego “and behold the ground trembled under us and we heard a 
roar from theair’’, (Les Voyages de Sindebad le Marin, ed. Machuel 55). 


38 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


in early Hebrew was shortened through the receding of 
the vowel of the second radical and the elimination of the 
1 as a half-consonant: 17 became °7 just as 13 became 5 
(Is. 3. 24). It is very likely therefore that the word should 
be vocalized with a hireq 15°72, only that under the influ- 
ence of analogy with the ordinary construct state of 1-7 
(‘‘sufficient’’) the Massoretes introduced here likewise “2, 
Thus the two ancient versions of the Bible first men- 
tioned above understood the general spirit of our passage, 
especially the Septuagint. In the Syriac version there is 
perhaps a trace of the original meaning of the word "1 (<1), 
but the general sense of the sentence has become obscured. 
Sa‘adya’s translation is defective in both respects. Only 
if we add the aid of Arabic £59 to the rendering of the 
Septuagint do we geta complete explanation of the sentence 
—both as regards the verbal meaning and the general sense 
of the clause. Let us not forget that the preposition 3 
serves not only as a locative or instrumental but also as a 
temporal particle. Thus n87 798° 1Dv¥ '72 means simply: 
“at the sound of the trumpet—i.e. when the sound of the 
trumpet calling for battle is heard—the horse rejoices’’. 


XXX. 5. nxvn “step, walk”’. 

This is the only meaning that naturally suits the 
word as it occurs in Prov. 13.6; Aywn  FyTON 7kn ApPIY 
neon *bon. 





The verse is usually translated—in accordance with the 
Peshitta and the Vulgate—as follows: ‘‘ Righteousness 
keepeth (or guardeth) him that is upright in the way, 
but wickedness overthroweth the sinner.” This translation 
is based upon the treatment of the expression 477-0n, 
in spite of the fact that the Massora particularly vocalizes 


62 So interpret the English Authorized version, and most of the Jewish commen- 
tators, e. g. Rashi, Ibn-Ezra, Philippson, the Eng. transl. of the Jew. Publ. Soc., the 


French transl. Zadoc Kahn etc. 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRA PHY 39 


the word ‘on (with 6) as the construct of on, as a pure 
adjedctive (=on) “the man who is upright of way.’’s 
Consequently nxgn must express the antithesis of such a 


b] 


qualificative, i. e. ‘‘the sinner, the man of sin.’ 


But, as hinted above, yrvon according to the Mas- 
soretic punctuation is an abstract noun meaning ‘“up- 
rightness of way.’’ Had the intention of the Massoretic 
tradition been to express an adjective, it would rather 
have used the typical phrase qrrmen which is found in 
ready proximity to our verse, i. e. in Prov. 11.20 Qnusm 
Mm eon) easeaisosin rs, 119 1 (447 Don 40s). This 
is analogous to other expressions, like mya opm and won 
ov (Job. 36.4; 37.16). 


In regard to the use of the word nxyn in the sense of 
‘“sinner’’, even Saadya (Xth cent.) was reluctant to accept 
so bold a metonymy, preferring to look upon it as a second 
subject of the sentence and to translate: ‘“‘ But wicknedness* 
and sin pervert.’ Kautzsch®, indeed, is led to doubt 
the authenticity of the MT. Ehrlich, also, feels that in 
this passage it is impossible to give to the word nxun its 


customary meaning. 


Among other modern commentators, Bickell and 
Kittel may be mentioned as having based their transla- 
tions upon the LXX and, in view of the reading Tous 0¢€ 
doeBers, would substitute oywan for ayy. In such 
manner, having n&vun as subject, the second hemistich of 


our verse would be made to mean: ‘“‘ But szz makes the un- 


b 


godly worthless’’, or “‘and sin overthrows the wicked.”’ 


63 The Vulgate offers here an inversion: viam innocentis (=OM VW “the way of 
the upright one.”’ 

64 Saadya: Version arabe des Proverbes, éd. Leroux, Paris 1894; see p. 70. 
xp AvSdN) mdon. 


65 See his Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments, Freiburg und Leipzig 1894, 
p. 796. 


40 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


I should, however, recall the fact that in an article® 
already published, I have tried to prove that the meaning 
‘to overthrow” ascribed to the verb 2D by many exegetes 
and lexicographers ° 7—especially in the supposed expression 
y1> 4%d—is a pure fiction. The basic meaning of this 
verb in the Bible is ““‘to remove from the straight line, 
cause one to leave the upright way’’, and then “to pervert 
or distort’’, followed, as we shall see, by the object 7717 
“way, walk”’ or by a synonym of this word. Used in a 
more figurative sense, it conveys the idea ‘“‘to cause one 
to forego righteousness or truth’’,—this time followed by 


the object ‘729 “the words of’ (Prov. 22.12; Ex. 23.8; 
Deut. 16.19) or the name of a person. In this latter case 


the meaning may be “‘to induce into error, to make foolish 
Gr to; Cause’ to: sith, “(Prove zijice sl OlmleLo 

Let us now see whether the verse that we have under 
consideration can not be explained without any mishandling 
of the Massoretic text. We must not forget that it is 
fashioned upon the model of antithetic parallelism. It 
is quite clear that the first hemistich expresses an abstract 
idea, 1. e. a characteristic of righteousness: ‘‘ Virtue keepeth 
uprightness in the way.’’ Then, it is equally clear, the 


second hemistich must contain a characterization of the 





opposite moral feature—wickedness. Now if mywn as the 
antithesis of mp7x is the subject of the second hemistich, 
the words nxon FSpn must express the contrary of 71xn 
J77-0n. And, since ‘on Wxn means “keeps uprightness of”’ 


‘ 


or “in” (on being the construct of on) and is evidently 


” 


the opposite of »%on ‘‘perverts’’, the word nxn can be 
nothing more than a synonym of 97. 

The foregoing explanation is confirmed if we compare 
the words nun 4%on with a parallel phrase in the same 


66 See La particule emphatique ‘‘ta’’ dans la Bible, in the REJ., 1922, No. 147, 
pp. 5-6. 


67 For instance, Gesenius, or Siegfried-Stade. 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 41 


book (Prov. 19.3), 717 490n. And the supposition be- 
comes almost a certainty if we appeal to Arabic usage. 


sé 


There SyloS means simply “step, stepping, walking, 
pace’’, derived as it is from the verb We (root gbs) 
“to step, walk.” 

We should, then, have to translate our verse as fol- 
lows: “Virtue keepeth uprightness in the way (i. e. the 
upright way), but wickedness perverteth the walk”’ (i. e. 
takes the perverted course). 

It is undoubtedly interesting to note that the word 
Nkvnm occurs once again with exactly the same meaning, 
in Job 14.16: -nsun-by saown-e5 a\DON Iyx Any °D. In 
the article referred to above, I have explained that there 
is no necessity to follow the Peshitta and add xb before 
71»DN or to read with the Septuagint ayn in place of 
sown, as Ewald and Dillmann have done. The two hemi- 


‘ ’ 


stichs are perfectly parallel: to "yx ‘‘my steps” ’nsun 


“my walk” or ‘walking’ corresponds. The phrase -xb 
"vn does not contain a negation, as is generally believed. 
The word xd is merely the Scriptio plena of the emphatic 
particle meaning ‘‘verily ’’ and represented in Arabic by 
dg, in Assyrian by lz or la and which occurs in a number 
of passages °®*® in the Bible. The verse of Job, then, can 
be translated following a perfect parallelism: ‘For now 
Thou numberest my steps, verily Thou watchest over my 
walk.”’ 

It is further probable that this basic meaning of 
“stepping, marching, walking’’ that attaches to a root 
sun is to be seen also in the verb wenm (Job 41.12) which, 


then, would be identical with the corresponding fifth form 
of the Arabic verb Lbs ( pbs) “to step, walk’’, and have 
a sense here similar to that of Arabic —bs _ Non would 


68 Indicated and explained in my above mentioned article, REJ., 1922, No. 147’ 


pp. 1-12. 


42 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


mean ‘‘to pass over, swerve from.”’ In such fashion the 
hemistich iwenm onawo (read oxavp) might be rendered 
in English: ‘‘ Billows pass over”’ or ‘‘ pass away from him’’ 
(frightened by the dreadful crocodile). It has been also 
suggested to emend o%s.of the first hemistich to 079). 
If we accept such an emendation, we again obtain a very 
satisfactory parallelism, translating: ‘‘waves are frightened 


by his majesty, billows pass away.” 


XXXI. 6. wn “to snatch away, carry off, reap.” 

This verb, in Job 14.10 w$mn mn. san, is still con- 
sidered by most commentators to be related to the Aramaic 
won “to be weak’’ and to the adjective wn of Joel 4.10, 
which is really identical with the Syriac ANZ (xwbn). Ap- 
preciating, however, that the term wom) translated in this 
way is an anticlimax after nv’, they have exaggerated the 
above meaning as far as the signification of the Aramaic 
root would allow. Thus the most usual translation of 
our sentence reads: ‘“‘But man dieth and wasteth away.’’6 

As early as the tenth century we find Saadya inter- 
preting this verse in a similar manner: “But man when 
he dieth, is benwmbed.’’79 Gersonides (XIVth cent.) as- 
cribes to the verb w9n both in this passage and in Ex: 
17.13 the meaning ‘‘to cut off’’.71 This might have been 


suggested by the vernacular Arabic? Uta “to reap with 
a_ sickle.”’ 


69 This is the English Authorized Version. 
70 Saadia: Version arabe du Livre de Job, Paris 1899, éd. Leroux; see p. 45: 
“ ¢ 


ds! “to grow numb") “7528 IP) NNO NWS W?N). Notice the curious resem- 
S 


blance of this interpretation to the meaning acquired by the same verb in Yiddish 
"won “to faint, swoon’’. Comp. with the French Zadoc Kahn translation: s’évanouit 
(meaning both “‘to faint, swoon”’ and ‘‘to disappear’’). 


71 See Gersonides on Job 14,10. 


7 In common use among Palestinian fallahin. Since this verb does not belong 
to the literary language, it does not occur in the classical lexica, like those of Freytag, 
Lane, Kasimirsky. It is, however, found in such Lexica as include dialectical words 
and phrases as, for instance, Steingass’ Arabic-English, Wahrmund’s Arabic-German 
and Belot’s Arabic-French dictionaries, 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 43 


Delitzsch’s interpretation of this verb in both the above 
passages (in Job—fdllen, stiirzen; in Ex.—fdllen, nieder- 
strecken) can be considered but as a broadening of the 
Aramaic signification ‘‘to be weak”’, since it rests on neither 


etymological comparisons nor other positive?’ proofs. 


’ 
y 


Merx’ “und liegt?> da’’, Budde’s ‘“‘und ist dahin”’ (for ‘‘er 


liegt dahingestreckt’’7* in the Commentary), seem to be 


Other translations, like Renan’s ‘‘il reste7* étendu’ 


more or less influenced by the Vulgate rendering—nudatus. 77 

The Peshitta jise 2Zls lpaye (823) NX 87331) as well 
as the Targum popon’ have evidently had in mind the 
Aramaic signification of wbn. 

The Septuagint rendering @yeTo, however, is quite 
different from all the others and seems most naturally 
to fit our text by its striking simplicity. Indeed, ®yero™ 
comes from otxouat ‘‘to depart, go off, pass away, dis- 


’ 


appear”. The whole hemistich would then read: “But 
man dieth and disappeareth’’. This is doubtless the near- 
est to the original and genuine sense, inasmuch as it af- 
fords the best parallelism to the second hemistich: ‘‘Man 
expireth and where is he?”’ 

On this account some would read 497" (Dillmann, 
Beer, Merx) instead of won, others suggest the emen- 
dedation 49nn (Wright, Budde). Thus, we have here an 
other instance where the wrong principle of changing the 
MT in order to adjust it to an obsolete rendering of the 
ancient versions, chiefly the Septuagint, serves to prevent 
us from discovering the true character of authentic Biblical 
vocables long misunderstood. For in most of such cases, 


73 Delitzsch, Das Buch Hiob, Leipzig 1962, p, 154, also p. 46. 

74 Renan, Le Livre de Job, Paris 1882, p. 57. 

75. Merx, Das Gedicht von Hiob. Yena 1871, p. 65. 

76 Budde, Das Buch Hiob, Géttingen 1896, p. 70. 

77 This may also have inspired the English tranlslation of the Jew. Publ. Soc.; 
see p. 936: ‘But man dieth and lieth iow.” 


78 LXX Job. 14.10: dvnp dé TeXevTHOaS BETO. 


44 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


especialy when supported by comparative Semitic lexi- 
cography, it is rather logical and natural to recognize 
archaic roots whose genuine meaning was hitherto con- 
cealed by their graphical resemblance to other words more 
common in the Bible. | 

There is no doubt, indeed, that this particular passage 
does not need to be emended. The above verb is quite 
independent of the Aramaic won and must be considered 


- 


as the ancient Hebrew counterpart of the Arabic rd 


‘to snatch away, carry off.’’79 Nothing could give as 
perfect a parallelism with the next hemistich: “But man 
dieth and is snatched away; man expireth and where is 
he?” 

Curiously enough Schleusner, who noticed the con- 
nection between ples and the above rendering of the 


LXX, continued, nevertheless, to translate this wbn in ac- 
cordance with the old fashion—debzlttor.81 

Furthermore, the above meaning also suits the text 
in Ex. 17.13 aan-p> ay mse pooy-ne yor wor “And 
Joshua carried off (or ‘“‘snatched away’’) Amalek and his 
people with the edge of the sword.’’ What an energetic 
expression the verse thus contains! 


This instrumental phrase ann-»>, recalling by as- 


ag 


sociation the above vernacular AAs ‘‘to reap with a sickle’’ 


that I have connected with Gersonides’ interpretation, is 
here of special interest. First, it furnishes additional 
proof that a verb wbn, different from its Aramaic homonym, 
was actually existing in ancient Hebrew. Secondly, it 


affords opportunity to trace the origin of the above ver- 


79 See this verb in Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon, London 1865, p. 784. 

80 The right vocalization of the Hebrew, as a transitive verb used here in a passive 
sense, would certainly be wor if derived from its active form worn in the passage next 
quoted. 


81 Schleusner, Lexicon in LXX, Glasguae 1822; see vol. I, p. 544, otyvopat. 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 45 


F te 


nacular Uda itself. As a matter of fact, this agricultural 


term is quite absent in classical Arabic, something which 
may lead us to call in question its very Arabic origin. On 
the other hand, this verb is common chiefly in the vernacu- 
lar of Palestine and Syria, while it exists neither in Aramaic 
nor in Syriac. It is then most natural to assume that 
in our case we have to deal with a Hebrew loan-word picked 
up by the Bedouin invaders from the indigenous peasants. 


Indeed, the spelling of (sts appears to be simply a 
phonetical copy of the above Hebrew wbn, without the 


corresponding \w (or &) for w as one would naturally expect 
for roots common to both Hebrew and Arabic. 


This assertion seems further to be strengthened by 
the comparison of the vernacular pod with the classical 
ges The meaning of the former verb, ‘‘to reap’’, would 


be merely a specialized shade of the general sense of the 
latter—‘‘to carry off, to snatch away.’ Both verbs may 
be etymologically identical. The original Arabic form is 


a“ 
=- - 


yah, the classical counterpart of the Hebrew wbn, with com- 


mon primitive meaning ‘‘to snatch away, carry off.’’ The 
Hebrews, a preponderantly agricultural people, would nat- 
urally have derived from this general signification a more 
special one: ‘‘to reap,” i. e. to carry off with a sickle. 
This verb would further have been preserved by the Pales- 
tinian peasants up to the time of the invasion of Islam, 
when it could come back to the Arabs through the channel 


of the vernacular under the form halas (Yaka), according to 
later Hebrew pronunciation where every NM is regarded as 
a 

I should like to close this study with reference to Is. 


14.12. It seems most probable that here, too, our verb 
has one of the shades of the above advocated meaning, 


46 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


perhaps rather the second. For whatever the value of bys: 
in the phrase orn-by wbin might be, each hemistich would 
emphasize a tragical contrast in the fate of the King of 
Babylon. The first compares him to a “day-star’’ which 
is ‘fallen from heaven”’. “The second, where w)n is ob- 


viously a counterpart and synonym of ny722 (from yr) “to 
cut down’’), wants to assert that he who used “to 


carry off’’ nations by his victories, as a reaper does corn, 


is now ‘‘cut down’”’ himself. 


Isnv-ja S54 onwno nop: 7s 

lona-by win ,paxd nya: 

‘How art thou fallen from heaven, 

O day-star, son of the morning! 

(How) art thou cut down to the ground, 
O reaper of (LXX all) the nations!” 


XXXII. 7. yn “lot, portion or fate of man”’. 


All the early and later commentators of the Bible in- 
terpret Job 34. 6 ywe-ba -xn wux in the customary way, 
as if the word °xn were derived from the well-known noun 
yn ‘“arrow’’, and as if Job meant to say: The arrow which 
God thrust at me for no fault of mine causes pain. There 
are some who see metonymy here and think that °xn sig- 
nifies ‘‘the wound of an arrow’’ (Budde, for instance); ac- 
cordingly °sn v8 means “my wound (which was inflicted 
by the arrow of God) is incurable”’. 


Now we ought to feel that such a strong metaphor in 
the passage before us is unnatural and altogether too sud- 
den, and hence could not have been the intention of the 
author. 6. 4 does not furnish any proof, for there yn has 
its proper meaning and fits into the context, which is a 


8 Some emend it to “b> on account of the LX X,. See, however, the explanation 


of this particle here by Qimhi (p"7). 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRA PHY 47 


picture of God warring against Job: wx ‘Toy ‘Tw XN 
D9 y Mdxs3 mya-mannmwonon. Duhm therefore reads in 
the above passage xno ‘‘my wound”. But any emendation 
is superfluous here. And, indeed, there is hardly any doubt 
that the word yn in our passage, under the misleading simil- 
arity to yn ‘‘arrow”’, hides an ancient vocable which has 


been preserved in NAC DIRS (x=L) SSD 3 lot’, por- 


tion of the lot of man’”’. It is true that be generally 
signifies mostly ‘“‘a good lot,’’ but it also designates ‘‘lot”’ 
in general, and with the addition of a special adjective also 
“a bad lot’. In this way our SORES vux yn would 


5 5 207 


correspond with the Arabic expression nee Eee Pope) 
fortuna adversa (Freytag) “bad luck’’*, a meaning which 
would be made even clearer by a comparison with the par- 
allel expression in Jer. 17. 16: wx" ov. Thus, as is custom- 
ary in the Book of Job, the parallel thought is emphasized 
in our passage. In the first half Job states in a general 
way that the judgement which came upon him from God 


A A 


83 Ben-Jehuda, Thesaurus, I, 572: *MY3,="M?Y from Cagis ‘to send”. 


84 I cannot enter here into a discussion about the evolution of this meaning of YN: 
whether the meaning ‘‘lot, portion’’ was derived in course of time, by way of metonymy 
from that of ‘‘arrow”’, since arrows were used in casting lots. For usitis important that 


Nis used here not as a metaphor, but in its proper sense of ‘“ portion, luck’’, asin Arabic. 


85] give preference here to the stem thy over that of weo> ( Lol =>) for the 
following reasons: 1) the former has also the abstract sense of ‘‘fate’’ which fits our pass - 


age so well, while the latter has a more concrete meaning of ‘‘a portion’’ belonging to 
S Lin S 3 = 
somebody; 2) the former is used also ina special expression, gina => corresponding 


to the Hebrew expressions VIX YN ,WIX OF; 3) ass resembles the Hebrew YN also in 
$s 


w - 
form, while o> resulted in a feminine noun Xx, Ss = T1Stl. Finally I may add that 


it is quite possible that the Hebrew stem YXM absorbed the two primitive stems which 
w vate d a, - ‘ 
have been preserved in Arabic: asin conj.1IT, ola “to give to someone the portion 


S 


that belongs to him’’ which corresponds to )¥¥pj 9 in Job 21. 21, and bs which is 


to be seen in the noun YM above. 


48 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


is a wrong judgement®*, and in the second half he specifies 
his thought by saying that his lot (or luck) is bad (xn wii) 
though he has not sinned (ywb-93)... 


XXXIII. 8. yr (root. yt) “to say farewell to, take 
leave of, leave.”’ 

This hapax legé6menon occurs in I Sam. 21.3: nx 
spb oso> opo bx cnyt? ony. The translation usually 
given is worded: “‘And the young men have I appointed 


’ 


to such and such a place.’’ The Targum renders the verb 
simply by *o3p mn>w “have I sent onward.’’ Since the 
approximate meaning of this word is sufficiently indicated 
by the context, no very perceptible divergences could 
result in the general interpretation of the sentence. 

Nevertheless, various opinions have been expressed 
concerning the etymology of the above verb, involving 
as a consequence, the question of the authenticity of 
the text. 

Conservative scholars naturally assume that the verb 
is an unusual form of the usual verb y7°: some explain it 
as a quadriliterals7 form yt, others as a po‘el8’ conju- 
gation corresponding with the Arabic III form. The basic 
meaning would be nearly that of the Hiph‘il ymn ‘to 
let know’’, whence ‘“‘to enjoin” or “‘to appoint.” 

Radical scholars, however, frankly wish to emend 
the text. They suggest as an alternative reading *myii 
ATVI eA, or at least *nyTin. 

Between these two groups we may place those exe- 
getes who believe they see here a mere metathesis of *mpyy, 
po‘el from ay’. Thus Wellhausens? does not question 


8 Perhaps we might read here ip "DBUD bx. Comp. ‘ODD DN be at the 
end of the previous verse 34. 5. 

87 See, for instance, Qimhi’s commentary. 

88 Ewald, Ausfiihrliches Lehrbuch der Hebraischen Sprache, § 125. 


89 Wellhausen, Der Text der Biicher Samuelis, p. 121, Gé6ttingen 1871. 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 49 


this root, which is admitted also by Driver,» Budde* 
and Ehrlichs?. Most of them rely upon the LXX: dvape- 
wapTupnuar conveys the meanings of “‘attest, affirm, en- 
treat, charge, enjoin’’, so that in our verse it would mean 
“to appoint”. Let us add that the Vulgate also, with 
its condixt, seems to support the root 7y’. 

Consequently, if we were certain that our text is corrupt, 
we should be ready to admit here as the most likely hy- 
pothesis the root 7y°, rather under the hiph‘il form -*myin, 
But just that is the question. The corruptness of our. text 
is scarcely demonstrable. Could not the above LX X render- 
ing be considered as the best way of turning into Greek 
our ‘nyt that was supposed to convey the meaning of 
YT, as interpreted by later Jewish?’ commentators? 
Note also that the Peshitta, with auct (nin) “show, de- 
clare’, seems clearly enough to plead for the root y7? 
(in a causative meaning) of the Massoretic text. 

If, however, we assume that our Hebrew text is correct, 
we have to meet two difficulties, one of a purely morpho- 
logical and one of a general semantic character: (1) Why 
have we the very rare po‘el form instead of the usual 
‘nyTin, since the verb must be translated here with hiph‘il 
connotation? (2) Even if we assume a hiph‘il sense, is 
it possible to maintain that, without any artificial stretch- 


46 


ing, the verb yt’ can be made synonymous with “send, 
appoint, dismiss’ —the meaning required here? 

Here we are afforded another good opportunity to 
ask ourselves whether we are not in presence of some 
archaism forgotten by tradition and whose genuine value 


could be detected only with the help of kindred languages. 


Indeed, the same root ¢o. has in Arabic the basic 
ay 


90 Driver, Notes on the Hebrew text of the Books of Samuel, p. 137, Oxford 1890. 
91 Budde, Die Biicher Samuel, p. 147, Tiibingen und Leipzig 1902. 

8 EKhrlich, Randglossen, Band 3, p. 242, Leipzig 1910. 

93 See, for instance, Gersonides’ commentary q"a>>). 


50 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


meaning of ‘‘put down, deposit, leave behind, abandon, 
take leave of and wish a good journey to’’. Moreover, 
even our exceptional grammatical form of this verb 1s usual 
in Arabic:9% pols (as well as the II f. £05) means ‘to say 
farewell to, take leave of, abandon, leave’’ (when separa- 
ting). 

Thus the meaning of our above sentence may be: 
‘“And I wished the young men a good journey to such and 
such a place”’, that is to say more simply “I sent them away 


yy 


(or “I dismissed them’’) to such and such a place. 


The root y7’ as well as the rare po‘el form would be 


justified without any text emendation. 
This y7? (=y7}) corresponding with Eos would then be- 


long to the verbs 1”), and should be distinguished from 


ey 


the usual yt” “to know”’ which seems to originate from a 
genuine *") stem, as may be inferred from Ethiopic 42.20 
(’aydé‘a) ‘to let know, announce”’ and perhaps also from 


Assyrian ida “‘to know.”’ 


XXXIV. 9. jn (=m) “to be perpetual, exist perman- 
ently, be everlasting and indestructible”’. 


Let us compare the following four verses, all occurring in 
the Book of Proverbs: 


A. 9 ops mym ’NIan NT ywra nano (10. 24). 
B. mM ops wii oy a xo ywr ton (12. 12). 
C. 7p2n oxy) nN) SDN 11a ps tls stay 
D. Jum xd. ym pam MAN mMxNF OT YD (21. 26). 


In all these passages the verb mn’ makes the impression 
of being out of place: for ]n) is a transitive verb, and why 
then has it no direct complement here, except—it seems— 
in verse C (Axo jm)? Especially striking and startling 
is phrase B: jm’ o’pax wiw—what does this root yield? 


94 This etymology has already been hinted at in my article Light on the History 
of the Hebrew verb, JOR. (New Series), vol. XII, p. 32. 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY oil 


Hence all the forced and artificial explanations from time im- 


memorial to this day. 


However, the situation changes completely once we 
begin to investigate the very essence of the root hiding 
behind the form jm. If we decide to discard the stem jn), 


then we are left with the alternative of considering the 
root jn’, from which are derived the noun and the adjective 


jx. In Arabic this root is frequent also as a verb Gp5s. 
The word ]n’s corresponds in meaning to the Arabic ad- 
jective oak ‘“‘strong’’, ‘‘permanent in place’’ (hence 
also in existence, in action etc.); therefore we say in He- 
brew: ]™& a2wy—a dwelling which exists permanently in 
its place and cannot be destroyed; }n’s 9m1—a wady whose 
water continues to stream ceaselessly without being dried 


up, etc. Also the verb Gps5 means primarily “exist cease- 
lessly, be indestructible, be permanent’’, as, for example, 
the water flowing ceaselessly from the well. Hence the 


meaning of the third conjugation cpls—to persevere in. 


Now in truth this verb jm, and not jm), is hidden in 
the above-mentioned four passages, and through it they 
may be explained in a natural and logical way in accordance 


with the antithetic parallelism so common in the Book of 


Proverbs. 


The second passage, B, should be vocalized thus: 7p 
oy? tixo yor “The desire for wicked deeds is a trap (71X90) 


in which the wicked are caught’’; ee ) 1m OPT ww) 
‘but the root (= race) of the righteous will last forever”’, i.e. 
they will not stumble and fall into the trap like the wicked. 


As to verse C, it should be interpreted as follows: 
myo ym yitia-p 1 “Only through insolence (or presump- 
tuousness) does contention last’’; o°¥y1] n&) (or O’yi¥, comp. 
11. 2) naDn “but with the lowly is wisdom’’, not contention. 


ahd A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


Apparently 7»2n here, in opposition to 7x9, designates a 
patient and considerate relationship, a peaceful attitude 
due to a calm state of mind, like the French sagesse. There 
is no necessity to vocalize with the Septuagint py for pr: 
such a hemistich would be entirely pleonastic. Likewise it is 
unnecessary to delete® the a of }1912 and make py subordinate 
to nx. For the fundamental idea expressed in our proverb 
and emphasized by an antithetic parallelism is this: only 
among presumptuous people quarrels prevail, among the 
lowely, on the contrary, there is always a calm state of 
mind (patient and considerate relations). And although 
msn, the subject of the clause, is in the feminine, yet it is 
not very surprising that the predicate is in the masculine, 
]7’ instead of }nn; such discrepancies occur frequently in 
the Scriptures, especially when the verb precedes the sub- 
ject. And besides, perhaps it should be vocalized «yn, 
perfect. 

In the other two passages (A and D) it seems to me 
that the meaning of the verb m1"7 also and of the noun 71KN 
is not the customary meaning of the Hebrew root Mx (="&) 


<= 
but that it is associated with the Arabic root sal, here too 


especially in the Hithpa‘el 2aG “to rest in a quiet and 
sheltered place’’. Hence I interpret the first passage as 
followsa3Nian x’ yw nan ‘The harm which the wicked 
fears, it shall come upon him”’; jm) opts mxym “but the 
repose of the righteous will last forever’’. Perhaps here 
too we should vocalise @im, Ehrlich thinks that ywr is 
the subject of jm’, and he translates thus: ‘‘ While the wicked 
experiences that which he feared, he grants the desire of 
the righteous, who wish it upon him”’. This interpretation 
is certainly ingenious, but not natural; it is strange to as- 
cribe such a brand of morality to the righteous. Buta strong- 


er argument against it is its lack of parallelism. 
%° Ehrlich, Randglossen, VI, 68. 
6 Freytag: in mansionem et locum quielis se recepil. 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRA PHY 53 


Finally, the fourth passage, D, in spite of Ehrlich, 
may be considered as a continuation of the previous sen- 
tence dealing with the slothful (Prov. 21. 25-26). msn 
moan Yxy “The (continuous) repose of the slothful killeth 
him”, mvyds pa xo Dd “for (through it) his hands refuse 
to labour”. (Septuagint by) msn mxnn orn-2> ‘All 
’ (=rests from work), 
jum 87) jm pay “while the righteous keeps watch (con- 
tinues to work) incessantly.”’ 


day long he but rests and reposes’ 


Thus jm in all these four passages is derived from 
the root }m\=]m of the class 1"5. Accordingly, if we really 
had before us the form of the imperfect, it would have to 
be vocalised 1@ like 7% awetc. But, as was already hinted 
above, itis quite possible that we have here forms of the perfect 
in—nyy, which, it is difficult to decide with absolute certainty. 
And since the Massoretes thought that jn) is the underlying 
stem, they quite naturally but erroneously vocalised jm. 
Now we understand why it has no direct complement, 
for jn’ is indeed an intransitive verb. 


XXXV. 10. ites “oppressor, violent man”’. 


It is well-nigh probable that this is the meaning in- 
tended in Job 20. 29:5x» nox non ody yor-otks pon ar 
Here 17x correspondes with ywr-otx. Let us compare this 
with the subsequent passage in 27. 13: bx oy yw otN-ponar 
InP? Iwo OXY NIM). Incidentally let me remark, in op- 
position to the critics who resort to emendation, that it 
is the latter passage that has been mishandled. There 
is no doubt that it was originally constructed in the same 
way as the first or preceding sentence, and must therefore 
have read>qwo poy nom Sxo yer os pon ar. oy was 
not there: the y is simply a dittography of the last letter 
of yun, and the d is an element of bxa. pay became o(?)¥"4y 
owing to a dittography of » of Tw». inp’ seems to have 


54 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


been added afterwards in order to lend a verb to D°x’79; 
but there is no need for it, since nvm) here is not an archaic 
absolute but a construct state, like ox nom in the former 
passage, and the sense is: wo (o)eay nom (1). At any 
rate, the word 178 in the first passage corresponds with 
yws-o7x, and here again it corresponds with (o°)xy. 

Already the ancients misunderstood the word, and all 
of them derived it from the root 198. The Septuagint 
rendered 1708 nom by KrhRua UVrapxovTwY avTo, i. e. the 
possession of the things appointed to him by God, which 
God promised (198) to give him. Budde apparently fol- 
lowed this interpretation in his translation and commentary 
of Job. The Vulgate renders verborum eius, as if it were 
10998. Now besides the fact that such a translation is 
invalidated through the second passage, which is nothing 
but a repetition of the first with a variation of synonyms, 
it is also surprising that the main fault of the wicked should 
be said to lie in his words: is it especially for them and not 
for his deeds that he deserves punishment? Moreover, 
it is very doubtful whether such an expression as Y78 nbn, 
in the sense of “punishment coming to him for his bad 
words ’’, fits in with the simplicity of the ancient Hebrewstyle. 

Modern commentators propose various emendations 
for ioe: pay wet jin. They have a feeling for the 
true meaning of the word which should have stood here, 
but the actual word has escaped them. As a matter of 
fact it is before them, and there was no necessity to search 
for it. 

The word 178 requires no emendation whatever. We 
have before us an archaic grammatical form which needs 
only to be recognized in order to identify the exact root. Asa 
matter of fact, itis a suffixless noun, formed by means ofa pros- 
thetic aleph after the manner of the nominal types bypx and 


%7 Budde, Das Buch Hiob, p 117; Gesenius—Buhl, Handwérterbuch, p. 51, v. "WOR... 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY ete 


DIVDN (YAXN. DWN. TWN; TIDE, yitty). Accordingly, the & of 1708 
is not a part of the root; nor is the final ) the suffix for the 
third person, as is generally believed, but represents the 
long vowel which marks the form Siyps and which occurs 
also in the Arabic nouns “yy! . For 17x is not derived from 
728 but from the root {_»(=879): the third radical, 8, was 
dropped here as nannene sometimes when it is vowelless, 
in the middle or at the end of a word (comp. ia) I Ki. 12. 12; 
‘on Mi. 1. 15; nso Nu. 11. 11; °nbo Job 32. 18, etc.). 
Thus morphologically speaking, both with respect to root 
and form, our}798 (=s179y) corresponds with Arabica, pal- yal ; 
found also without prosthetic aleph: Be (or ya also Bye), 
which signifies ‘‘man’’ together with the various traits that 
characterize the male for good or evil: manly, courageous, 
strong man, mighty. This word designates in Arabic also 
“the wolf”’, probably on account of his strength and ferocity. 


Say 9 S I9 Se? » 


Hence also the abstract noun Boye — Bey re — Spo signify- 
ing ‘‘ manhood, power, strength’’, besides the general concept 
of “humanity’’. Similarly the verb sy “to be manly, 
On the whole this stem Ine, in 
addition to its other meanings, designates all the nuances 


9 


strong, powerful, etc. 


and shades of meaning comprised in the Hebrew noun 
323 vir and the verb 733 G73} nvaKND). 

In Aramaic we find stress laid on the idea of overpower- 
ing domination. si7779 means “master, lord, ruler’, 
and from it is derived the abstract noun mip ‘domination’. 

In this wise our 1998 contains the concept of the Arabic 
ey and in addition the Aramaic nuance of overpower- 
ing domination; its sense would then be: ‘‘a violent man, 
an opressor’’, as is borne out also by its juxtaposition to 
ywr—ots in Job 20. 29 and (o°)x1y zbid. 27. 13. 


98 With the Hebrew form 91YD& two forms may correspond in Arabic: “SLesl and 


aise Jyxsl: thus b)DUR = Just and J, Kt. 


56 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


Finally, it is likely that the well-known Hebrew stem 
m9 has absorbed two primitive roots which correspond to 
two different verbal forms preserved in Arabic: 1.°99 =770, 
a verb "> (comp. Sy" especially conjugation III Ss), 
which is employed particularly in the sense of disobedience, 
opposition to somebody’s command, etc.; 2. 819, a verb i 
which corresponds in Arabic with the stem and meaning 
indicated above, anf of which only a few remnants are left 
in Hebrew, such as 1798 discussed above and also 7719 
(=nti) in Job 36. 22. In this last passage the sentence 
reads 7719 19799 °) ID3 Dw YR"17. Now the word 7719 
which of course refers to God, corresponds to 1nD2 271% 
and is similar also in its grammatical construction to the 
Aramaic xv) (an active participle); its meaning therefore 
is: governor, ruler, lord. 

It is quite possible that also in Zeph. 3. 1: ANTI ON 
mr ~yn 72s, the word AN is nothing but a feminine 
form of 87119 and signifies ‘“‘oppressing, tyrannical’’, in 
juxtaposition to 7177 yn and in correspodence to the 
subsequent description of the princes and the judges as 
3599 (SN... .ONw ners (2bzd. 3. 3). 


XXXVI. ita. ayy “to go to, turn to, approach”’. 
This signification of the Arabic verb (ex (root ps) 


is sufficiently corroborated in several places of the Scriptures. 


A. Job °23: 8-9: 
5 pas xd1 TnI mye) bas o4p jv 
Taw xdi po yyy IMS 821 INvyA Dixnw 


The Vulgate reads }byN sz me vertam (the Syriac dase) 


in the sense of the Arabic Vgtie, ie. ‘‘Iturn’”. Themain 
thought—Job seeks God and does not find Him—is repeated 
four times corresponding to the four sides of heaven:a7p 
east, T1N8 west, 2NOw north, ]’9 south. In this manner 
every hemistich is composed of three elements: the name 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 57 


of one of the sides of heaven, a verb of motion, and an ex- 
pression designating the absence of God. And just as there 
is a correspondence of meaning in ays »b pax dy 
(meaning ‘‘andI do not see him’’) ,aimg=) IN8 81, and xd) 
M8 18—so also invya (read *nyya) corresponds to} Vy (= VN, 
see above), and its meaning is: ‘‘WhenIgo,turn’”’. Thus 
the sense of verse 9 is exactly this: ‘‘When I turn to the 
left I do not see Him (God), and if I turn to the right I 
do not behold Him”. 


B. Ruth 2. 19: mwy mix) strengthens our hypothesis, 
for the word 718 usually points to motion. Naomi asks 
her daughter-in-law: Whither art thou gone or turned? 


C. I Kings 20. 40: 73m 71n Awy 7IAy is an additional 
proof, for 735 likewise implies motion. Here too, therefore, 


the sense is “‘Thy servant is turning hither and thither”’, 
on a par with the expression 7) 7) 15D”). 


XXXVII. 11b. myy “to cover, envelop”’. 


Also this signification is well illustrated in several 


Biblical passages. 


A. Prov. 13. 16: nd1x8 wip? Spa nytanyy ony 55. This 
proverb belongs to the duplicate passages in Proverbs, i.e. 
passages of the same contents that are repeated with slight 
changes or synonymous terms. Let us compare it with 
verse 12. 23: nbix sap’ ord°o> ad) nyt ADD Oy o7N. The 
idea underlying both these verses is simple: while the wise 
man conceals his wisdom and is not in haste to reveal it, 
the fool hastens to proclaim his folly (w1p° “spreads 
openly’”’, xp’ “‘proclaims’’). Hence, on the basis of 
a comparison between the two verses and in accordance 
with the antithetic parallelism required between the two 
couplets of the first verse (7D2—¥15), many commentators 
propose the emendation nyt 7p>° for nyta mwy’. However, 


58 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


there is no need for emendation, since nwvy here, correspond- 


ing to Arabices? ends is a special verb (D=;)s altogether 


’ 


different from our ordinary verbnwvy “‘to make, to do’”’ and 
synonymous withno>. The original version was very prob- 
ably nya mwy: “conceals wisdom’’, but the Massoretes who 
confused this archaic nvy’ with the more frequent verb of 
the same sound naturally added a and interpreted Avy 


nyta ‘deals with forethought”’. 


B. Also in Is. 32. 6: }1n mwyd premwy 1251 etc., it is 
difficult to believe that the same verb was repeated in such 
close proximity. Besides, it is not customary to say a9n 
}& Mwy? in the sense of “ the heart will work iniquity’’. Hence, 
if we do not want to emend with the Targum (;;nwynd) and 
the Septuagint (vonoe.) pRtavm for pRenwy, we should 
have to explain the puzzling expression in the sense of ‘‘con- 
cealing iniquity’’. 


C. In addition, let us mention as a mere possibility 
Ob. 1. 6: 1D¥D Iya) wy wen zx. The word wy here 


looks somewhat suspicious: if indeed it is the same proper 
name as that which occurs further on in the chapter, why 
do we find in one and the same sentence first the plural— 
weni—and then the singular—)npxp “his hidden things’’— 
with reference to the same subject? Perhaps we should 
read here plene ryy—his owy, this being construed as a 
noun derived from the above mentioned verb nwy (as, for 
instance, in Arabic cling from cane) and cast in the 
form of md .orxy nine (p. b.), all” forms. ywy in the sense 
of ‘‘concealed things, hidden treasures’’ (or the places hid- 
ing them) will thus correspond in meaning, gender, and 
number to 121) ¥9 of the second hemistich. This hypothesis 


therefore deserves consideration. 


98a For instance: LgadI had} opener: ‘He causes the night tocover the day”, 


Koran, Sur. a‘raf 52. 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 59 


XXXVIII. 12. any] (root any) “artificial, false’’. 


Except for our ignorance of the true origin and cor- 
rect meaning of the word nminnyi, there is no reason why 
we should suspect the Massoretic version in Prov. 27.6: 
Nw Mp w) NANNY AMS yyy o9N2. The emendation nat, 
after the Septuagint, appears far-fetched and difficult (a 
construct to a construct). Other emendations, like mwpyi, 
nny (Toy), are not at all in the spirit of the Hebrew 
language. However, the very root ny here has up till 
now been the subject of doubt with many scholars, and this 
shows itself in the various attempts at explanation. The 
explanation of Perles®°, ‘“‘vapor-like’’, despite its tenuity 
offers no true antithesis to 0°98) in the sense of “well- 
meant’’. Therefore this any is generally construed as an 
Aramaic form of the Hebrew stem 1wy ‘to be rich, wealthy’, 
and accordingly niqnyi is rendered ‘“‘abundant, numerous, 


’ 


superfluous’’. But here again there is no genuine and 


fitting antithesis. 


. It is interesting to compare the ancient versions here. 
The Peshitta already was ignorant of the meaning of the 
word and hence omitted it altogether. The Vulgate, how- 
ever, renders the verse thus: Melora sunt vulnera diligentis 
quam fraudulenta oscula odientis, ‘‘ Better are the wounds 
of a friend than the deceptive (false) kisses of an enemy’”’. 
It is difficult to determine whether fraudulenta here is in- 
tended to be a translation of mnyi or is a free explanation 
added to mp’wi. Yet this Latin word may help us to under- 
stand better the intention of the Septuagint translator who, 
apparently, is more careful and exact than all the other 
ancient translators in the rendition of this sentence, for 
he alone translates 0°398) in the sense of ‘‘(more) trust- 
worthy’ =dévoriototepa. To fraudulenta corresponds 
éxovota ‘‘voluntary”’ in the Septuagint, and on this basis, 


Dh AAO eee, NESE 1D aR Ble Bie 


60 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRA PHY 


as mentioned above, some suggest the emendation nan 
for mioanyn. However, it is quite possible that éxovala 
o.d\nuara may mean here “voluntary kisses’”’ in the sense of 
kisses given with a set will and intention and not because 
of inclination, i.e. atrificial, false, exactly as the Latin trans- 
lation renders. This then would be a proper antithesis 
to 0°JDN). 

Now it is very likely that this is indeed the true sense 
of the word ninny2 and that our text is quit2 correct. Support 


may be found in the Arabic root x= which has both a 
concrete meaning ‘‘to stumble, to trip’’ and an abstract 
meaning ‘“‘to lie, tell a falsehood’’. Thus many would be 
a proper antithesis to 0°29") both in the concrete (JON 
‘sound, permanent’’) and the abstract sense. mianyi mpw) 
means then ‘“‘artificial, false kisses’, which do not come 


from the heart or are deceitful. 


Possibly also Ez. 35. 13: op-1279 °Sy onanyn should 
be interpreted in this sense: ‘‘you falsified your words be- 


fore me’’, ‘“‘you spoke false words”’ 


XXXIX. 13. ow (root ow) “to attack” (in war). 
This verb, as far as it is sesh to judge especially 


from its use in Arabic — (Uegasiy as) PP ale — meant 
primarily “‘to put one thing into another’’, like a sword 
into its sheath. This concept was specialized afterwards, 
among other meanings, to signify “putting the weapon into 
the breast of the enemy’’, and finally it was still further 
circumscribed as a special military term in the sense of “‘a 
well organized attack of war’’. This technical term occurs 
in our Scriptures, and the critics who misunderstood it 
tried in vain to-emend the text in which it occurs. 

A. In I Kings 20. 12 byimwn how :ytay Ss aR” 
~’yn, the sense is evident enough. Ben-Hadad, king of 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 61 


Aram, who besieged Samaria, was wroth at the negative 
reply of Ahab, king of Israel, and he gave command to his 


troops (TOX1=1s, r') to attack the city, exactly like 
the French: Attaguez! And there is no necessity to add 
the word 71x» after the two verbs— 150 Yow ID 19°. 


B. Ez. 23. 24: »ap q>y iw’, likewise needs no em- 
endations nor additions, its meaning being: “they will attack 
thee all around’”’ (with reference to Oholibah). 


C. I Sam. 15.2: q>02 15 oy--wx means most naturally 
“how he (Amalek) attacked him in the way”’. This clause 
merely serves to specify the too general statement con- 
tained in the immediately preceding sentence about the 
same subject: “I remember that which Amalek did to Israel”’. 
It is, therefore, quite unnecessary to consider 1b ow as an 
elliptical phrase by the omission of the object D°3780, as 
admitted by David Qimhi and later commentators—on 
the authority of the Targum (7 y957). 


DS Job 23, 62-2 OWN i-WN S82 TIDY 34 n5-3730 has 
never been properly understood and always served as mat- 
erial for forced and insipid explanations or cheap emendations. 
Now the matter is quite simple. ‘ In the preceding verses 
3-5 Job expresses his desire to meet God at one place (*p 
INNDN TY NAN NON) JN’=his place) in order to contend 
with him: to submit his arguments before God Himself 
(mnsin xbox °b) ,wDwn PID> AD IYER) and to get an answer 
from Him 05 4px? AD AYANI IY? OdD TYTN). This is the 
demand of justice. But until now his experience was 
altogether different. There is no attempt at judgment 
between the two parties, there is no comparison of arguments 
and no account is taken of the justice of proofs. Only one 
party, God, makes evil use of His great might to fight 
the other party and attack him (a ow’). This sad 
experience Job wishes to depict in verse 6 in the form of 


62 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


a query of protest, repeated twice (parallelism): m3-2747 
toy aa “Is it only by means of His great power that 
He would contend with me?” (Is this all the judgment?) 
3 OW NIT JN 8?P—'2 Ov -4N NIT NO(T) “Is He not only at- 
tacking me?” (without taking intoaccountall the arguments). 
pw’...7® corresponds to nd-272: only attack with force, 
not judgment. This was the situation untilnow. Therefore 
Job strives to obtain a meeting with God in a certain place 
in order to get a true judgment from Him, based on a com- 
parison of the arguments of the two parties, and not on 
mere might. 


It is interesting to note that this special sense of ow 
exerted an influence on its customary synonym nv, lend- 
ing to it, as an intransitive verb, also the meaning of “‘at- 
tack’’. And this is its true sense in Is. 22. 7: nw ow pM 
miywn inv “and the horsemen attacked the gate’’, and also 
in Ps. 3. 7:°4y inv aap Tw OY maaqD NTN ND “attacked 
me all around”’ (comp. above, under B.). 


’ 


XL. 14. yowe “Very dear, precious”. 


Prov. 21. 20: 1yba ots S°p21 DDN AIA }Ow) TOM] XIN 
is sometimes emended in accordance with the Septuagint 


(avaravoerar érl oTOuaTos) to DIN °DA Dw? AMM) AKIN. 
Others conjecture that the word jovi is a later addition 
which should be eliminated and the couplet read 79m) 1x18 
oon 71a. Now if we decide to correct at all, it would be 
much better to drop 71) and read: D5n 10° JM] Axs, in 
antithesis to 1y>2°. 


But if we abide by the Massoretic text, we are compelled 
to admit that the ordinary meaning of }ow does not fit in 
this sentence: “‘oil’’ here impresses us as ridiculous—why 
just oil? But also the general sense of !¥7 (like }pw-j2 ]7p), 


employed in Sa‘adya’s translation (OD079s8 = pwd), adds 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 63 


nothing, besides the fact that the verb 1ny9>> naturally and 
clearly points only to a singular, 1x1", and nothing else 
to complete it. Thus }ow here makes no logical and ap- 
propriate sense unless we compare it to the Arabic adjective 


rte? (2=) “very dear, precious”, derived from the 


a“ 


es % : = : 
noun 45 ‘price’. It is of no importance here to decide 


what might be the exact form of our adjective: )2¥. [2v. 
12%. 12¥ and so on. It is sufficient for us to know that if 
the consonantal text is correct, then the most appropriate 
rendering of the verse under discussion must be as follows: 
‘A desirable and precious treasure is preserved in the house 
of the wise and dissipated in the house of the fool”’. 


XLI. 15. aw “to shine, gleam, flash”’. 


In the first hemistich of Job 37.3, iw? o»wa-b5-nnn 
the ancient versions translate 111° differently, each dif- 
ferent translation affecting the general idea of the sentence. 


The Septuagint reads: yrokaTw TavTos Tov ovpavou 77 
apxn avtov ‘His dominion is under the whole heaven.” It 
is difficult to decide whether the translators intended to give 
here a free rendering of the substantive -y100 “‘justice’’—a 
reading in accordance with the later supralinear vocalization 
of the Babylonian Massora!°!—or of a verbal phrase like 


’ 


aon” ‘he dominates’. Everything considered, the 
first supposition is likelier and seems to have been followed 
by Delitzsch.1 But Kahle is quite right in remarking 


that in this passage, closely before and after which thunder 


100 Comp. Targum MY “his justice, straightforwardness.’’ Gersonides, 
too, considered here the root to be WW’, but in the proper meaningof ‘‘straightness, 
rectitude. ”’ 

10. 44u = Tiber. WT". See Kahle: Der Massoretische Text der baby.onischen 
Juden., p. 80, Leipzig 1902. 


102 Fried, Delitzsch, Das Buch Hiob, p. 112, Leipzig 1902. 


64 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 


and lightning are spoken of, one would expect something 
else than “his justice’ to be mentioned.19 


The rendering of the Peshitta is: nieuoe3 Latow ems Daw 
(731NAw] NOW 71722 Mmnn) “Under the whole heaven they 
praise him.”’ Apparently, the translators used the reading 
mw= Nw (comp. Prov. 31.28 AIwNN mI2a Wp). This 
interpretation, as far as I know, has found no modern 


supporters. 


The Vulgate, however, conveys a quite different idea: 
Subter omnes coelos tpse considerat— ‘‘Under the whole 
heaven [Ze inspects.’’ Evidently the Vulgate read aon 7w 
from the verb wv “‘to look at, to see.’ The same ety- 
mology is adopted by Saadya, Rashi (XIth cent.) and 
recently by Ehrlich who wants to read wr ‘they see 
it’’, so that the suffix might anticipate the following 171") 
“and his light.’’ At any rate, it is noticeable that for 
Rashi already and for Ehrlich the whole verse refers to 
lightning only. 

Curiously enough Ibn-Ezra (XIIth cent.) would see here 
the later Hebrew 77 “‘to soak, to water.’’ And recently 


Winckler, by comparison with Arabic eS “to be wet, 
damp’’, came to propose the same? etymology. 


Finally I must mention the most modern interpretation 
which is now in favor among scholars and seems to be 
final in their minds, so that it figures regularly in the Bibli- 
cal lexica (see, for instance, Gesenius, or Siegfried-Stade, 
root mw). These exegetes identify 74 with the Aramaic 
and Syriac verb x1w “to loosen, unbind, let go’’, and 
translate our hemistich approximately ‘‘Under the whole 
heaven He sendeth it forth’’ (the thunder). See, for in- 
stance, the commentaries of Budde and of Duhm, or the 


103 See Kahle’s above-mentioned Massor. Text der Bab. Juden, ibidem. 


104 See Mitteilungen der verderasiat. Gesellschaft, 6 Jahrg., p. 338. 


A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRAPHY 65 


English translation of the Jewish Publication Society (Phila- 
delphia 1919). 

Such, however, cannot be the true meaning of our 
text. The second hemistich: ‘“‘And his light (is) on the 
ends of the earth’’, shows clearly enough—by reason of 
parallelism—that the first, too, may refer to lightning, 
but not to thunder. This is proved all the better by the 
next verse just beginning the description of thundering as 
a new phenomenon: “After it (the lightning) a voice 


pH 


roareth...’’ Verse 2 must then be considered as a general 


introduction. 


Now, inasmuch as it seems sure that 177’? must con- 
vev some idea of lightning, as felt already by Rashi and 
later by Ehrlich, the final waw of this word cannot be an 
object suffix in connection with %p or ax of the preceding 
verse, as Budde, Duhm and others have been induced to 
believe. This letter may be merely a dittography of the 
following word 1718), so that the correct text might be 
maw’. As to this verb, it would hardly be possible not to 
recognize here its identity with the Arabic ope: “to shine, 
gleam, flash”. Just as in our passage, this verb is used 
in Arabic when violent lightning is spoken of and with 
the more exact meaning: ‘“‘to shine repeatedly and inten- 
sively.”’105 And so we shall render our verse: 55 nnn 
(or mw) mew own “He flashes (or ‘causes to flash”’) 
under the whole heaven, p18 m1D1D YY I71N1 and His 
lightning (extends) upon the ends of the earth.” 

The fact that usually an Arabic |% corresponds with 


a Hebrew sin cannot be a sufficient argument against the 


above clear etymology. Indeed, the exceptions are not 


few where a (» proves to be the counterpart also of a Hebrew 


105 See LS pt I (second half) in Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon p. 1544.. See 
J 


also Freytag (‘‘coruscavit, fusit multum fulmen’’), as well as Kasimirsky s. v. 


66 A CONTRIBUTION TO BIBLICAL LEXICOGRA PHY 


shin, for instance: opine, PpN— GLa” Se), wy q— 
“hey PRO aH Na “py— ia (as well as pias) etc: - ~bhus, 
it would be quite superfluous to consider here the possi- 
bility of the primitive Hebrew text really having had 
a SIN (770") or of our 77” being merely a loanword. 


HEBREW INDEX 


(Including only vocables for which a new identification, or etymology, has been 


proposed in this book) 


; S 
CIN aC tes. ae Sah eater § XXIII 
“TNiVe(t, “PNY Ban alae Oe LY, 
STININT CEO ATIN) wa ersle 7 oso ya LV 
SINE op tata on and ae se aecen Ibidem 
| 
Eo eat A SP Nae el Seer ELS 
at 
rt hale evieget tual eee meerree, o, Qigl 
8 om bas Pade al eee ee ae, OO BI 
BP all eit re Merete 's 9,205, pei aeX, VELL 
oT (ase ae wih teehee taki ce OLX 
rl 
tard. (CONS. OF (37h 4) oes ave ctae me ous WLED 
ic 
BIN econo rire oath cis vault a rie eid XXX 
eda Vaca + eae eae yee ee 6.24 
PU ea are ares whe vasa wer ai Pact XOX 
Raye a ener oh a oleae LT 
Tianhe ae hrs Poet ee ere, O. 89 
9 
ate t Sol me A ste ele d esol XXXIII 
I EO Notre ec etnlaree cm gy LX 
PA COIN Pace ak xem ye ah XXXIV 


] 


a) 
VeVON he ais iets acetal ngiaisrelvs «' § XXXV 
J 
YU Ve eee eee cece eee eee eee XIII 
Shakin Sos GA aaa ee ae x 
“UY (or WITT). -- gy Wi dig ths nk Utes ts IX 
TINY 2... sce e cece cece ee REXVI 
Fy ent AR ine eo ciate ie eee XXXVII 
BI dete eteiay cere lace f a ie XXXVITII 
D 
“Pp v- (re. Wp) .--- A OG POCR HI E XXIII 
Geet ph eat anaan Pere ee XXI 
ala) is) hn ky Ati aio megraceri ie Ibidem 
a) (eh Dane Ibidem 
“| 
PA n ee ewe epee cece ge snes cents IV 
DY (r. DW)... . eee eee eee eee XXXIX 
TVDY . oe cece cece e eee eee ceee IV 
TY. PW) 0c eee eee eee XXXIX 
la in ia et apne isis cir A ee eae ate win arcie XI 
YD... eee e cece e ect eetece tees VIII 


Ezek. 


Ob. 
Zeph. 


Zech, 
Ps. 


Prov. 


Qoh. 


BIBLICAL 


INDEX 


(Including only passages newly interpreted) 


73S ede paige iene § XXXI 
LO SOR nal Le oe eee XI 
Od iS. tte ee erate eee XXXII 
2040 Bo Ain hieteercierin XXXVI 
COND Rote Fine hea ee ses SEX XI 
SB be Arete We; Pa Rheteeicha Are XXXI 
LIAO BRO rei ete tae Severs XV 
COM Soe siain sa ce anette XXXIX 
SOMA tive etait etme sil oe XXII 
SPAN = Ne oe PND ir Ph gre XXXVII 
SLA: 2a i feaas a ieee eiteee VIII 
pe Bi Tk pare Rey I cy XXI 
LO; ELS oaiscch a rave ae erelnaim ietens Ibidem 
COVA eva. he etre as a rie Ibidem 
Sy la Mele oe wan poe eae XXXIX 
OF, Ld ee € aiden Be whore XXXVITII 
3.05 Sik Esters Ferns iapete op nace Pitas XXI 
D eo alee I PERE orto XXXVII 
CEVA Sw aage, tke wioke rier VI,XXV 
Dloe cue se a nee XXXV 
De Ua oy doberst Seetevece etree ae IX 
© FY BRC rh abe ery See XXXIX 
LE AS ee era ie eRe tees XXVITI 
ee ee os Pee oe Ibidem 
Sol 22 ss ak Tae XXII 
2107 tae eer XXXVIII 
Fa Re iret BR roe oH eRe XVIII 


Job 


Prov. 


Ru. 
Cant. 


PIDs co cadet tackle penn apes § X 

O57 Fe a Lebar ce eet XIII 
14 AGT picts ete ie cia eaten XXXI 
145 6 SP ca on eles eee XXX 
ISH2S enc te cee XIX 
LOTS eee nee eee eres tecale XXVI 
20,29 We Selersere see a ae aa XXXV 
LOD Peon 6 haa ne ene XXXIX 
25 Vis is cules an ae XXXVI 
U2 Sante Ae eee eee XXIV 
34,6255 3 ERS tek eRe eu XXXII 
36225 Ma aes alee aida XXXV 
Fg Be a Pie ey ey eS IY XL 
5 Poet Oe ate ee args Ia) XXIX 
AULD acer aes teat ee ate ee XXX 

C2 Pe aes ee ee ee XXII 
LO 24a Pee cotter retelate XXXIV 
BG A ae eth Aree Wares o La: Ibidem 
DES ee Pe Se PB ey ty XXITI 
LID csnln it waackeuae eee ees XXX 
£330 canes pa et eho ae ee IV 
LZ;10 Me acecteds tee Neaees XXXIV 
TD AGG er aa an ene ie XXXVII 
Fl be DM Riiry ey ee XXXIV 
rH, BOA EAR Ee Pt Sr FE) XI 

SU EY Sea ty eae Mn EA XXXVI 

SO Wels wet ing ea tea XXVII 















Se NEADS aD 

ps tae ys aa oe a 

Be ae oo? 
at . i Siti eon a 






iY if iy iN 
a PW lie oF ¢ 
>: 7 UH CHA We oe) ee 
»- ' | ji 1 2 > aoe 7 
i . r f 7 1 . 3 

, : : aha | yy Px 7 

: ‘ fei : ; “he gaat 

, : ad { ; i ‘ i c 
AUT hy ve é “—s5 
a ‘4 i. ns 


oe 
! 
< 


ae on 6 As i & 
+2 
é 


i. Ca a 
\ 
. 


pl $ y oo 





DATE DUE 





GAYLORD PRINTEDINU.S.A,. 





1 1012 00144 1296 fi 


eee 
i.’ = — 
a 
(ee 
ee 
> — a 
ees 
Se 
emer 
ee 
0 eee 
eee 
+ 
er ens 
C eieaeiietee ad 





